The Bill to amend the Act to incorporate the Albert. County Railway Company .
A Bill to authorize the Trustees of the
St. Andrew's Church, St. John to sell
property in Salisbury ;
And the Bill to change the name of the
Parish of Palmerston, in Kent, to Saint
Luke's, were agreed to.
A BILL TO ADD TO AN ACT RELATING TO
THE MILITIA.
MR. OTTY, in explaining the objects
of thc Bill, said that the militia law exempted volunteers from the payment of
taxes to the extent of six dollars. This
provision did not act fairly, because many
of the volunteers who spent their time attending drill, paid but a small amount of
taxes, the whole exemption amounting to
but sixty-one cents per head for the volunteers in King's County. They thought:
being exempted from six dollars taxes,
would exempt them from statute labour,
and a case was brought to trial, when the
Chief Justice have his decision that it did
not exempt them from statute labour.
Therefore it was unfair that the volunteers in the rural districts, who had to
travel some distance to attend drill, should be exempted from so small an amount;
while the volunteers in the cities who had but a short distance to o to attend drill,
are exempted from a larger amount in consequence of their taxes being higher.
MR. NEEDHAM said he would have had another section prepared for the Bill, if he had known it
was going to be introduced. The volunteers were exempted to the extent of six dollars,
and if his
taxes were rated under that amount, he
was disfranchised, because by the terms
of their charter, no man could vote unless
he had a receipt for his taxes from the
City Treasurer. He had serious doubts
whether this exemption should be a local
charge. If five or six hundred volunteers
in Fredericton were ordered to the North
Shore, they should share the burden.
They should have six dollars paid them
out of the militia treasury, and let it come in as a portion of the expenditure for
the militia. He hoped the hon. mover would allow progress to be reported, so that
an additional section might be added to the Bill.
MR. WILMOT thought they should do all they could to encourage the volunteer movement. There
is a great com0 plaint made in St. John about these exemptions. they want to raise
a certain amount of money for a local purpose, and when the assessment is made they
do not know the number of volunteers who are relieved from a portion of their taxes,
which causes irregularity. If the volunteers were for the defence of the Province,
their expenses should be provided out of the general revenue.
MR. OTTY explained that the second section of the bill would provide a remedy for the irregularity
complained of.
COL. BOYD fully concurred with the remarks made by his hon. friend from York, in thinking
that the expense should be provided for by the Province at large.
MR. ANGLIN thought that the volunteers of St. John did not want any exemptions from taxes, but
they expected when they gave their time and services for the benefit of the Province,
they should not have to put their hands in their pockets and be compelled to pay the
expenses necessary to be incurred for the purpose. The least the public could do,
would be to provide them with all things necessary for the purpose of enabling them
to learn their drill. They should have a proper drill room, supplied with arms, and
if they were required to wear uniform it should be provided. Everything should be
provided from the Provincial revenues, or by the united action of the Province with
the localities. In the City of St. John half the expense should be provided by the
Province, and half by the City and County. It was not dealing fair with them, that
it should be necessary that concrts should be go up for their benefit, or that they
should beg from door to door to put a coat on their backs. He would protest against
that, and he hoped their claims upon the country would be acknowledged.
MR. LINDSAY said the present law did not work fairly, for it was not right that the poor man
should be relieved of but one dollar while the rich mand was relieved of six, for
they both lost the same time. If they were going to keep up the volunteer system,
the money should come from the Provincial revenues of the country. They did not get
the right class of men to attend the Camp of In
struction. They were men who were here to-day and away tomorrow, and merely went there
to have a jolly time.
If they could have got the young men of
the country, it would have been some
benefit.
MR. MCMILLAN remarked that they
should all be put on on equal footing, and
not allow one man to receive $1 and another $6 for the same service. In regard
to their having a free passage on the railway, when attending militia duties, he
thought the railway was Provincial property, and they should be allowed
travel on it for that purpose.
MR. McCLELLAN thought something
should be done to aid and encourage
them, but he objected to this Bill on acacount of the rich man being exempted from
more taxes than the poor man. Then in regard to localities, a martial feeling may
exist in one portion of the country, in consequence of encouragements held out, and
that portion of the country would have to bear the burden of these taxes, while the
whole Province would receive the benefit. It would also disfranchise these volunteers,
from whom we want an expression of opinion, as they were likely to be men of thought,
who took an interest in the affairs of the country. their names would not go on the
Revisor's list, unless they made application to the Revisors; many of them would not
make this application, and, in consequence, would be unable to vote. The last section
says, they shall pass over the railway free of expense. It is not fair that certain
parties in the County of Kings should have a privilege which is denied to the rest
of the Province. This whole system of free passage on the railroad was bad. It was
a subject he intended to enquire into this session, to ascertain how many people are
allowed to pass over the road free of expense. he was inclined to think there was
a great many individuals went over that railroad free. The members of the Govenrment
pass over free, and he was not sure but their supporters passed over free too. HON.
MR. SMITH supposed he intended his observations to apply to the late Government, as
the present Government had not been long in power, and has had the control of it only
for a few months. It was very well for him to say he had suspicions of this, and that
some enquiry ought to be made to see whether those suspicions were well grounded or
not. He thought Mr. Lawrence deserved the greatest credit, as he saved from fifteen
to twenty thousand dollars in the expenses connected with that railroad. (Mr. Lindsay
- I should like to see an account of it.) He was speaking of facts. Mr. Lawrence had
paid a larger sum into the reventues than ever had been paid before, and that was
good proof that there was not many free passages. He had reduced the running of the
trains, and had reduced the staff. He only runs one through train per day, which afforded
as much accommodation to the country as they wanted. When this House came to examine
the matter they would sse what Mr. Lawrence had done, and they would be disposed to
give him every praise for the manner in which he had conducted the Railway. With regard
to the Bill before the House, he would like to give every encouragement to the Volunteers;
but there should be some provision to make the exemption more equal, and to prevent
their
DEBATES FOR THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 57
names being removed from the revisors
list. In regard to the last section of the
bill authorising the Volunteers to pass
over the Railroad free of expense while
on duty, he had no objection to that, but
instead of making it a matter of law, he
would leave it with the Government,
and they could make an order at any
time to allow them a free passage. He
agreed with the principle, that if the
Volunteers are organized as a permanent institution the expense should fall
upon the country. He had been rather
against those Militia expenses, and
would still continue so unless they were
necessary for the defence of the country,
but if necessary, no man should shrink
from contributing according to his
means for the support of that institution.
MR. CONNELL objected to the Bill,
and contended that, if the Bill was necessary, it should have been brought in as
Government measure. In regard to the rail
road, he had always paid his passage, and
he did not thiuk the Government had any
right to make an order for these volunteers to go over free. The road should
be so managed that it could be shown
who travelled free; and if there were free
passages given it should be stopped. at
once.
MR. NEEDHAM differed from his hon.
friend in thinking this ought to be a Government measure. The Militia Law was
on the Statute Book, and they could do
as they liked with it, for all the wisdom
of the country is not centred in the Gov
ernment. They came there to legislate
for the whole Province, and they should
deal even-handed justice to all. Particular localities should not be taxed for the
support of volunteers which were for the
benefit of all.
MR. BAILEY said that if the provisions
of this Bill were confined to King's
County, he would not oppose it, but he
would be very sorry to see it extend to
Queen's County. for they are not able to
pay so much for defence as this Bill
specifies. This Bill exempts the volunteer from three days' labor and six dollars
taxes, thus making the community
contribute $7.50 for each volunteer. He
believed the volunteer force should be
paid out of the general funds of the
country.
Some discussion then took place regarding free passages on the railway, and
on franking letters, after which progress
was reported.
MR. WILMOT called the attention of
the House to a report in the
Evening
Globe of a debate which took place in the
House on Friday, in which he was made
to say that "he had frequently stated his
opinions in favor of Confederation in the
abstract, to Judge Allen and others. but
never so expressed himself publicly in
the Council, although that was the impression he wished to convey." This
report, he said, was utterly devoid of
truth. What he had endeavored to impress upon this House was, that he had
stated in the Council that he was in favor
of union, and that Judge Allen had authorized him to say that he had heard him
express himself in favor of union in the
abstract.
MR. CAIE.—As all are expected to
speak on this question, I will endeavor to
makes a few remarks, but I think too
much time has already been taken up,
and too much money expended on this
debate, which had better be expended in
opening up roads for the poor back
settler, which the mover of this amendment was seemingly so anxious to save.
I shall not take up much time in the few
remarks I intend to make.
I am as anxious as any one on the floor
of this House that the defences of our
country should be put in a most efficient
condition, and every means within the
power of the Government should be taken
to protect the lives and property of the
people of this Province, particularly those
who live on the frontier or the seaboard.
The Government who would not enter
into these arrangements, would be unworthy of the people's confidence, and
would not receive the support of this
House for one day. I have listened with
much attention, and with an impartial
ear, for I am neither a disappointed
office seeker, nor an expectant of any
offices at the disposal of any new Government. I have listened with a disinterested
ear to the charges brought against
this Government, and the defence of the
Government. Although it is certain they
have committed sins of omission, and it
may be commission, yet I cannot think
we have sufficient grounds to pass a vote
of want of confidence in them. It is well
known to every member of the House,
that the Government only came into
power a few hours before the last meeting of the Legislature. and during the
whole of that session they worked almost
night and day to prepare Bills, which had
to be laid before this Assembly, and very
shortly after the session was adjourned ,
the late Attorney General and the President of the Council were deputised to go
to England. Shortly after they returned,
the then Attorney General was then
elevated to the Bench of New Brunswick.
Taking these things into consideration,
we would not be justified in condemning
them for their sin of omission. The one
great object with the Opposition now is
the overthrow of the present Government - reports are raised, communications to newspapers
and telegraphs are sent, not only through New Brunswick but through Canada and the
United States, all tending to the one object - the overthrow of this Government.
I should like this House to find any thruthfulness in many of these reports. the first
report represented the government as afraid to do anything. Then a report was got
up about railroads, and it was said by the enemies of the Government that there never
would be a sod turned on either side of these railroads by those companies, and that
the report that companies were going to build them was only got up to help Mr. Smith
in his election. Those contracts were made, and will be laid before the House in due
time. then they say this is a do-nothing Government, for they have not made the first
move towards protecting the Province from teh Fenians. One of the members from Carleton
stated that there was not a gun or pound of powder in the County he represented.
The Attorney General says there were five hundred guns and then thousand rounds of
cartridge sent to that very County, nd put in the hands of men who knew how to use
them, and would use thm in time of need, which we should believe, (Mr. Lindsay - In
the absence of my colleague, I will state what I have from good authority, that if
the yeomanry were to be called out, they had but three rounds of ammnnition to defend
their lives with.) I will leave that County and the Province to decide which we are
to believe. The next report I shall allude to
is what is called the " land jobbing."
Communication after communication, and
editorial after editorial were written,
month after month. accusing the Government of being the"vilest rascals" that
ever lived upon the face of the earth;—
that they had against all law and honesty
given to Mr. Gibson 15,000 acres of the
public lands. For what? The papers
said as a reward for the part he took in
the last election. I was asked if I would
support a Government that had been
guilty of such things. I said I would not
if they had been guilty of that, but
I will not condemn them unheard.
What is the truth of those reports? Mr.
Gibson told me that he spoke to the head
of the late Government to get a quantity
of land on the Nashwaak. He was asked
how much he wanted. He replied, 25,000 acres. They said this was too much,
and he had better be content with less;
and it was agreed that he should apply
for 10,000 acres, which they agreed to
grant, and the rest would come after.
The Hon. John McMillan was surveyor
General then, and the order for the survey was made. The deputy surveyed it,
and Mr. Gibson paid six or seven hundred dollars for the survey. The late
Government was still in power, when
he went and asked them what time
this land was to be advertised. They
told him whenever he pleased. He
had not the money at the time, and he
wanted to know when it would be advertised, so that he would have the means
ready to purchase it, and this was the
position in which things stood when the
late Government went out. The newspapers said the present Government had
given to Mr. Gibson a three years' license, so that he would not be opposed
at the sale of this land. This license was
given twelve months previous to the present Government's coming into power.
Therefore, all that has been said in the
newspapers by the editors and their correspondents, has fallen harmless upon the
present Government, but applies to the
late Government. I want this particularly understood, because one-half the
people of Kent are up in arms about it.
There is another report which I want to
allude to, and which made my blood boil
when I heard it. It was said that all the
" Antis" were little better than Fenians
or rebels. I was elected an Anti, or,
more properly speaking. an opponent of
the Quebec Scheme; and. although many
of my best friends are Confederates, and
there are others whose opinions I value
very highly, who have gone through the
Province lecturing on Confederation, and
telling the people that it would make the
country prosper by opening up a market
through the length and breadth of the
Canadas. Notwithstanding this, I am
still opposed to the Quebec Scheme, although my opinion may be but as a drop
in the bucket, in comparison with those
eloquent gentlemen, I differ from them
in respect to the opening up of the Canadas as a market for our productions and
manufactures. In place of its opening up
Canada as a market for New Brunswick
productions, it will open up New Brunswick for Canadian manufactures. This
can only be decided by endeavoring to
find out whether New Brunswick can
under-sell Canada. I might found an
argument upon an experience of twenty
years, during which I have imported
largely of the productions and manufactures of Canada. A few years ago the
people of the North Shore were in the
58 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
habit of importing all their castings,  Â
boots and shoes, soap and candles, and
various other articles from Canada, paying from seven and a half to twelve per
cent., besides all other charges. And
some still continue to import them and put
them in our stores cheaper than they can
be produced in New Brunswick; and.
until a year or two ago, I have seen stoves,
boots, shoes, and various other articles
of that kind imported from Canada, paying seven and a half per cent.. and still
come cheaper than the manufactures of
New Brunswick. I have bought stoves
from the foundries of New Brunswick
which were imported from Canada, and
sold to me cheaper than they could produce them themselves. A large trader
in Mirimachi showed me, within nine
months, a quantity of boots and shoes,
which he had imported, and asked me
what I thought they cost him. I said,
about fifteen shillings. He said, I have
paid all the expenses up to this time, and
they cost me about $2.50 a pair. This
was a gentleman who had advocated Confederation. I asked him what they would
cost in New Brunswick. He said $3.00.
I asked him how our manufactures in
New Brunswick would stand after that
seven and a half per cent. duty is taken
off. He said that was none of his business. I might argue this matter at some
length, but I will not take up the time.
I shall merely say that I object to the
Quebec Scheme in various ways. It will
entail an extra expense upon the union
of $2,000,000 a year. That is a larger
amount than we can afford to pay. Another objection is representation by population.
If we are joined by Nova Scotia,
Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland, our representatives will only be
forty out of one hundred and ninety-four,
but it is doubtful whether we will be
joined by them. Another objection to
the scheme is eighty cents per head,
which I consider entirely too small and
too much power is given to the Parliament at Ottawa. They have the power
of vetoing almost everything that is
done by the local Governments. That is a
power l do not wish to see taken from
us.
I am a New Brunswicker by adoption,
for I have lived here since the happy days
of childhood, and all I hold dearest on
earth live in New Brunswick. Whatever
I possess of wordly goods I have made in
this Province. Therefore, it has my best
wishes for its prosperty, and my best services are due and shall be devoted to her
services, but notwithstanding all this I
am a Briton by birth, and I am proud—
as, I trust, every member on the floors of
this House is—to call myself a British
subject. It is fron Britain we look for
protection and aid in our time of need.
From Britain we have received whatever
aid was necessary for us, and it is pretty
certain that before long we will have to
look to Britain again to protect our fisheries. It, therefore, becomes our interest
as well as our duty to meet the wishes of
the British Government, as far as is consistent with our own interests. She has
expressed a wish for a union of these
Provinces. There may be a great difficulty in concocting a scheme of union,
but l should like to see ourselves put in
a proper light in the eyes of Britain I
should like to be able to say to the
British Government: The Government of
New Brunswick have said they do not
want to go into confederation. The people have said so at the last election, an
election called for the purpose of giving expression of opinion on that subject.
We do not want the Quebec Scheme, we,
the loyal people of New Brunswick, anxious to meet the wishes of the mother
country in order to show their attachment, a scheme has been prepared which
we now beg to submit, and which will
show to the people of Britain that we are
a loyal people. That is the position in
which I should like to see us; and although I am still strongly opposed to
Confederation and the Quebec Scheme,
still if such a scheme could be concocted
I would like to see it gone into. The
first step would be to deputise an equal
number of Confederates and anti-Confederates from each Province to consider a
a scheme, which is to be submitted to the
Legislature of the different Provinces,
but before a decision is given it should go
back to the people. and I have no doubt
but it would meet the wishes of a large
majority of the people of the County of
Kent, who are now stronly opposed to
the Quebec Scheme. Let me not be
misunderstood. I do not want to see a
scheme like the Quebec Scheme put upon
the people of New Brunswick. I do not
want to see a scheme that will harm us for
all time to come to Canada, and place us
in a condition of dependence upon her.
But a scheme that will protect the best
interests of the people of New Brunswick,
a country in which I have lived for the
past forty-six years, and the country in
which I hope to die.Â
MR. GILBERT. - My hon. friend, who
has just taken his seat, and myself were elected to oppose a union of the British
North
American Colonies. We may attempt to
shelter ourselves in vain, by telling the
House we were pledged to oppose the
Quebec Scheme, and that we can go for
union in the abstract, or agree to be
united politically with our sister Provinces upon any terms. I tell my hon.
friend that I do not think fifty of his constituents know much about the Quebec
Scheme when they voted for him. They
did so because he was opposed to union.
They were not prepared to give up the
Constitution of this Province, or go into
any political union with Canada, without
having more time than two or three
weeks to consider upon it. I think he
would be derelict in his duty to his constituents, as I would be to mine, to vote
for any kind of union, unless we had further authority from the people ; therefore,
I hope my hon. friend, before we get
through with this debate, will look upon
this question in the same light in which I
look upon it, and that he will come to the
conclusion that he will not be violating
his pledges to his constituents of he
should vote for this amendment.
As I have the honor of representing
one - of the most important constituencies
in the Province, who contribute largely to
the revenues of the country, and are
deeply interested in the proper administration of the Government of the country,
I should neglect my duty if I should give
a silent vote upon this most important
question, although it would be more consistent with my feelings to do so, as two
of my colleagues are in the Government.
Sir, I regret that the affairs of this country have been so conducted that it has
become necessary to move a vote of want
of confidence against their administration, after their having such an overflowing
majority only nine months ago.
The hon member from the County of Kings (Mr. Scovil) though pro
per to refer to me, in the course of his
speech. I did not think proper to interrupt him while speaking, because I knew
from experience—we. having been schoolboys together—that he woull forget
his lessons if he was interrupted.
I had taken no part in the debate, I
do not know why he referred to me, and
said I had arrived at a conclusion, not
through my own judgment, but through
the judgment of others. He misunderstands the person he deals with, for my
hon. friend should know that this is not
my character. He says it is the nature
of the soil of King's County to produce
fruit after its own kind, the same which
was planted ; that potatoes in that County do not produce pumpkins. Sir. that
was the case when Mr. Freeze and the
two McLeods were the independent and
intelligent representatives from that County. In those days, there was nothing servile
in the members from Kings, for they
would not khow the knee nor listen to
the winning voice of any man; but those
men having gone to their long homes, the
feelings of that County have changed in
these latter days, and it is now a fact
that potatoes in that County will grow
pumpkins. and it may be that the true
production of the soil of King's County
is not present in this House, which the
people of King's have sent for exhibition.
and we may come to the conclusion from
what we see here, that pumpkins are to
be grown from potatoes in that County,
the hon. member's opinion to the contrary
notwithstanding. The Chief Commissioner of the board of Works said he had
never referred to the hon. mover of the
amendment, except when he was present,
and on no occasion had he treated him as
he had been by him treated; but in that
same speech he refrrred to Mr. Boyd, a
merchant of St. John, a gentleman of
high standing, who was not in the House
to defend himself. This gentleman he
called "an inflated bladder" Was he
not sheltering himself behind the privileges of this House to commit a cowardly
act, to bring in the name of a private individual, voluntarily, in this manner?
Another hon. gentleman has taken occasion to refer to a gentleman who has been
the leader of the late Government, and
has enjoyed the confidence of the constituency of St. John for many years, and
who has as much interest in the welfare
of the Province as those who boast so
much of their dinterestedness in taking
office. Has the time arrived in this country when a man is to be attacked because
he thinks proper to come within the walls
of this House to listen to this debate? It
is acting unfairly to do so, when that
gentleman has not a place on the floors of
this House, and in a position to defend
himself, and such a course is resorted to
to distract the attention of hon. members
from the true issue before the House. It
was for the same reason that my hon.
colleague occupied fifteen minutes in trying to show that my hon. friend (Mr.
Fisher) was wrong in giving notice of one
form of amendment and submitting another. This had nothing to do with the
question. The question before the House
was, whether the general conduct of the
Government was such that they should
enjoy the confidence of the House ? I was
one of those who advised him to to make
the alteration, because I thought the language used in the amendment. which he
first proposed to move. and which he gave
notice of, might be construed to be an
undue reflection upon the neighboring
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE 0F ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 59
Republic. Neither has it anything to do
with the question, as to the manner in
which the hon. mover of the amendment
was ushered into the world, nor whether
the Provincial Secretary came into the
world proprrly fashioned, and with full
faculties, or half baked. The Provincial
Secretary tried hard to prove to the
House that he was not a fool, and that he
was competent to multiply, and manage
the financial affairs of the country.
Whether it he so or not, that is not the
question at issue. We can examine the
public accounts, and judge of them personally. I have a high respect for my
hon. friend. We have always enjoyed
each other's friendship. These questions
are ouly dwelt upon to divert attention
from the real question before the House,
Another irrelevant matter brought in was
the election for the County of York.
Whether my hon. friend gained his election through a change of public feeling in
reference to Confederation or not, we know
my hon. friend was a delegate to the Conference at Quebec, and in favor of the
scheme, and it was natural to conclude
that his return gave evidence of a change
of feeling on that question.
We find that the Government of this
country in bringing this House together
have propounded the nature of their policy in reference to Confederation. They
promise to lay before this House the correspondence between the Mother Country and
the Governor General, relating to
a Union of these Colonies, and state that
it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that it is an object much to be
desired that all the British North American Colonies should agree to unite under
one Government. In reply to that a motion is made by the hon. member for
Charlotte (Col. Boyd), at the instance
and at the request of the Government.
which in my mind, will bind this House,
if adopted, to the principle of a union of
these Colonies. It says:Â
"But in any scheme for a Union of
the British North American Colonies
which may be proposed, it is, in the opinion of this House, absolutely essential
that full protection should be afforded to
the rights and interests of the people of
this Province; and no measure which
fails to obtain these objects, should be
adopted. "
Which means that this House is willing to adopt a scheme for the Union of
the Provinces provided protection shall
be afforded to the rights and interests of
the people. Now the only way the details of the scheme can ever be adjusted is
through the Imperial Parliament, and if
we adopt this answer to the Speech, I
think it is all the British Government requires us to say. What is the cause of
the delay that has taken place in the
other branch of the Legislature, in His
Excellency's not replying to their answer
to the speech. May it not be that the reply given to that answer might indicate Â
to the hon. members of the House before
question is concluded, the construction which His Excellency and His Government put
upon the answer in the
Speech now under discussion. I think'
we commit ourselves and the Province to
a union by this answer. Is the House
willing to adopt it? I, for one, am not
authorized to do so by the County of Westmorland. Could not His Excellency
reply that he fully appreciated our apprehensions and fears, and while thanking
the loyal commons of New Brunswick in
meeting the wishes of the Imperial Government as far as expressing a wish to
have these Colonies united. he could as
sure us that the Imperial Government
would carry out no scheme, unless the
rights of this people are protected. And
how would that be looked after? By
sending a delegation to the Mother Country to see that when the Imperial Act uniting
these Colonies is drawn up, our
rights are'protected, as we cannot do this
by an Act here. Having conceded the
point that we are willing to unite, the Imperial Parliament would have to carry it
into effect, because if left to the different
Legislatures, you would hardly get ten
members to agree upon the details of the
scheme. I am pledged against Union—
against having a Confederate Parliament
in Ottawa; therefore, as I was elected on
the anti-Confederate ticket, it is my duty
to my constituents to vote for this Amendment, and to vote against the Government
on that section, and I trust that some hon.
member will more an amendment to that
section in case this amendment shall be
negatived. The union of the British
North American Colonies was put to this
country in a very hasty manner, in conse
quence of which the people had not time
to consider the merits of the Quebec
Scheme, and union in the abstract was
the question upon which they decided.
Although it is the Imperial policy to unite
these Colonies, yet they will not unite us
unless by our own consent, because the
onlv way in which the constitution of a
free, intelligent and independent people
can be changed at all, is by revolution
or the consent of the people. Although
the Imperial Government have the right
and power to do so, they do wisely inform
ua that they will not pass an Imperial
Act to unite these Provinces unless it
is agreeable with the wishes of the people of this country. If we adopt this
paragraph in the Address, we at once
forego all further legislation in the matter. The details would be settled upon
by an " Imperial Act., and all they want
is our consent to be united. Upper and
Lower Canada were united by merely
giving their consent to a union in the abstract. The Imperial Parliament, by an
Imperial Act, settled all the details and
united those two Provinces together
without submitting any particular scheme
for their approval. Therefore, if we pass
the answer to the Speech, we will be
passive in the hands of the British Government. We convey to the British
Government by this Address, through
His Excellency. the idea that we agree
in th" opinion that it would be desirable to unite with the other Colonies,
provided our interests are looked after
in the details, and that is all that is required by the British Government, but it
is not what my constituents sent me hereÂ
to vote for. The Quebec Scheme should
have been debated in this House before it
went to the people. The were called
upon at six weeks notice to adopt a
scheme to change the whole constitution of the country. It was unreasonable to expect
the people of this country
to adopt a new constitution at so short a
notice. I had doubts about it, although it
is well known to the hon. members of
this House, and particularly to my hon.
friend, Mr. Anglin, that I some years ago
advocated the principle of Union, and contributed an article to the columns of
the Freeman, in 1863, expressing that opinion, from which I will read an extract:
"As an individual is justified by all
honorable and laudable means to promote
and raise his position in the social scale, so are a people as a country justified
by like means in endeavoring to occupy a
proud position in the scale of nations.
these Colonies, seperated as the now
are, one from the other, are isolated and
weak; but unite them by this great highway, join them together in bonds of social
fellowship, connect them commercially
with one tariff, one postal arrangement,
one currency. and what will be the sure
and certain result? Why it is inevitable,
it will be a political connection. Then
the ambition and aspirations of our people to have a country which they may call
their own, and to speak of their country,
would be realized."
In 1863 I also expressed an opinion in
favor ofthe Inter—Colonial Railway, and
in favor of uniting these Colonies, on the
floors of this House. To show this, I
will read an extract from a report of a
speech which l delivered in this House
that year. published in the Head Quarters:
" He looked upon this railway from a
broad point of view. lt would tend to
bind the Provinces together, and bring
them into close political and commercial
relations, and lead to the three Provinces
adopting one political arrangement, one
tariff, one currency, and eventually raise
these three disjointed Provinces into a
great country, inhabited by a great people, possessing a literature and a scientific
reputation of its own, and having a
Legislature thal would command the
respect of the world."Â
Feeling, as I have always felt, an anxious desire to promote the best interests
of my native Province and feeling that it
would be best promoted by being united
with our sister Colonies, which union
must bring about connection by railway,
and lead to other benefits, and that unless
that connection took place, we must ineviably become united to the neighboring Republic;
and being descended from
the Loyalists, who had taken up arms in
defence of British institutions, I am not
prepared to place myself or my posterity
in a position that, should we become annexed to the United States a time might
come when myself or posterity would be
called upon to take up arms to fight
against the mother country. Wishing,
therefore, to perpetuate British institutions in this countt, I have always entertained
a desire to see these British North
American Provinces united as one Colony
with a combined interest under the protection of Great Britain. I have always
entertained those opinions, but I was not
prepared at so short a notice to agree to
a union based upon the Quebec Scheme,
for I considered that it required further
deliberation before we should accept it.
Neither were the people in the County of
Westmorland in favor of it at the late
election in March, and I should resign my
seat before voting in favor of a union of
theseColonies, either the abstract, by
implication, or any other way. I expressed feelings in favor of union at the last
general election, but I gave reasons why
l came out in opposition to so hasty a desire to bring about a union under the
Quebec Scheme; and pledged myself
most positively to oppose it. When
solemn pledges are made to the people,
upon which a man is elected to this House,
60 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE 0F ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
they should be holden sacred. I am not
the man to violate them. It might be
proper and correct in questions affecting
the domestic policy of the Province,
affecting our public works or any other
great leading interest connected with our
own local affairs, that even an honorable
member of this House has conscienciously changed his opinion from those
he was pledged to observe at the hustings,
to vote in this House according to his
changed opinions. and in opposition to
his pledges, because a member of this
House represents not only a local constituency but slso the whole people, and
because at the next election his successor, should he be not returned, could
repeal in effect at his vote, and a succeeding House could undo what a previous House
had done. Such cases have
often happened in England and in the
Colonies. We all know the course Sir
Robert Peel took in reference to free
trade, although pledged to his constituents to support a high protective policy.
But in cases of that kind a man might be
justified to act different from his pledges
and take the consequences, but this is not
a parallel case. This Confederation
strikes at the whole Constitution of the
country, strikes at the Constitution of
this House, and, if carried. no subsequent House could alter or repeal what
we might do. No subsequent House
could retrace the steps which we had taken. Like the fall of a tree, a subsequent
House would be lifeless. The act had
been committed; therefore, Sir, no member could justify himself before his country,
however much his opinions might
have changed in reference to the desirability of a union, to vote for it in this
Housc when he is pledged to his constituents to vote against it. I shall not do
so, although I am convinced of the desirability of being confederated and of uniting
with our sister Colonies But unless
I get further authority from my constituents, I cannot go for it. I am prepared,
should my constituents want my services,
to go back to them at the next election
in favor of Confederation, favor of carrying out the supreme wishes of the
mother country on this question. Leaving this subject for the present, I have
other good reasons for voting against the
Government .
The Government have been guilty of maladministration in the affairs of the Crown
Land Department. They try to throw
blame on the late Government. We are
not here to-day to try the wrongs of the
late Government or any previous Government. If the late Government should
have issued an order of survey for every
acre of the public land in this Province, to
sell all the lands of the country to one
man, would you justify this Government
if they had carried it out, and sold all the
lands of the country to one individual.
If the late Government thought proper
to issue an order for survey to lock up in
the hands of one individual land to the
extent of 15,000 acres, which is nearly as
large as the whole Parish of Dorchester,
the present Government were not bound
to carry it out. I came not here to say
whether the late Government did right or
wrong. I am not here to advocate the
late Government, for I frequently gave
them opposition on questions in which I
thought they were wrong. The late
Government thought proper to issue an
order for survey, and if the incoming
Government thought a great wrong was
going to he done to the people of this
country, by granting to one than 15,000
acres in fee simple for all time to come,
they should have refunded the money
paid for the survey to the man for whom
the survey was made, for the policy of the
Government should be to defend the interests of the people in preference to subserving
the private interests of a private individual. In England we see cases where
companies am subsidized to run a line of
steamships. The company has to run the
risk of the policy of the incoming Government in respect to the continuation of
the subsidy and it is no breach of faith
to withhold it. So in this case, there
would have been no breach of faith whatever, for the duty the Government owed
to the people of this country was of far
more importance than to comply with the
wishes of a private individual, however
enterprising he may be. Talk about the
wrongs of Ireland, and I know she has
wrongs. for if ever there was a downtrodden country it is Ireland. This wrong
has been brought about by the same system this Government is now pursuing,
that is, locking up large blocks of land
which should belong to the yeomenry of
this country. The occupier of the land
should own the land, and this principle of
serfdom should not be introduced into this
country. Notwithstanding the expression of opinion by my hon friend from
the County of Kent (Mr. Caie), the people of that County will say, the land of
this country belongs to the people of this
country, who have to roll the black logs
and pile the black stumps, and cannot
afford to pay rent to any man. We must
avoid the errors of the mother country
and take lessons from the wrongs and
errors done to Ireland, in order to pursue a different course. It may be very
well to gratify the wishes of any private
individual to sell him a large block of
land, but we must reflect that in so doing
we legislate for all time to come, and introduce into this country, in future time,
n a system ruinous to the future welfare of
the country, and for which our posterity
will blame us, for it is natural to suppose
that if we lock up whole Townships, by
adopting the same course that has been
adopted in Ireland, the same effects will
be produced. I condemn the Government most particularly on that point, for
I do not think the late Government committed the incoming Government to any
line of policy, and they would have been
guilty of no breach of faith if they had
withheld the grant, and reimbursed the
individual for the costs of survey. During the last sitting of the Legislature I
expressed disappointment in the conduct
of the Government, because they had no
policy. I could not suppose that men
would come together under our system
having a constitutional and departmental
Government, without having some line of
policy. In England they often form a
Government over night, and a full policy
is arranged, otherwise the Government
could not be formed. If it be announced to the representatives of Her
Majesty in this Province, that they
have succeeded in forming a Government, the idea is conveyed that
that Government has adopted some policy
under which they intend to administer
the affairs of the country. Confederation
was settled at the polls, and the Government of the mother country have informed
us that they will not legislate away our
rights until we consent. The Government should have been formed upon
local policy, in a colony where a depart
mental and responsible Government is established. Why then did the Government prescribe
men, because they sympathised with the imperial policy, over which policy this local
Government could have no control, any further than by expressing in a despatch to
the mother country that our own people had decided against it? The wished of the
people having been expressed at the ballot box against the scheme, the local Government
could only be formed on a local policy, and not antagonistic to the imperial policy,
whatever that may be. Suppose there
was- going to be a war between England
and any power in any part of Europe or
the neighboring Republic, and we should
get up an anti-war party, or party in favor
of war, would it be right to form a Government in this province on either of those
principles if it interfered with the policy
of the Imperial Government? Not at all.
The Government must be formed on local
grounds to carry out the local wants and
requirements of the country; from what
has transpired during the debate, from
the statements made by my hon. friend
Mr. Wilmot, it would appear that His
Excellency sent for him and my colleague
to form the administration, and it would
seem that notwithstanding Mr. Wilmot
had had great political experience. had
been the leading mind in a previous Government, had great knowledge of the
commercial and agricultural wants of the
country; that my colleague took upon
himself the exclusive right of the formation of the Government, and brought men
together in that Government without any
policy. and upon no known principle. I
find no fault at the personal of the Government, and particularly none to my colleague.
(Mr. Botsford being taken in as
Surveyor General. I expressed myself
at the time, satisfied at his appointment.
I find fault that they started upon a do-
nothing system.
The House of Assembly was called together on the 27th day of April last, and,
the Speech from the Throne was delivered,
but there was no policy in it: the great
interests which should occupy the attention of the administration of the country
was completely ignore . The most important interest is the settlement of te
country, by which we get an increase of
labor, which increases the wealth of the
country. This important interest was
not mentioned in the Speech. We were
left in doubt as to the Legislative enactments that stood in the way of the completion
of our Railroads, and the educational institutions of the country were,
not alluded to. I then thought proper to
rise in my place and ask for information
but l was denounced by my hon. colleague the leader of the Government, who
said he did not wish my support. At
that time the Government had in their
possession an important despatch from
the Mother Country in reference to a
Union of the Colonies. which if known
to the House at that time, would have
obviated the necessity of sending a delegation home to England. If I had known
of it, I would have moved an address to
have it laid before the House. I believed
at that time that the Mother Country did
not fully endorse a Union of the Colonies.
I believed at that time that the Canadians
concocted the Scheme to redress their
own private wrongs, but I do not believe
it now. I believed too at that time that
they did not intend to build the Intercolonial Railway, but wished to go into a
Union for the purpose of getting over
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 61
some local difficulties respecting representation by population. I did not know
at the last session this Union was so fully and completely approved of and endorsed
by the Imperial Government, and
therefore I voted to send a delegation to
England to represent our opinions on the
question. I should not have voted for
that delegation had I read that despatch,
which was in the possession of the Government at the time and withheld from
the House, for I would then have understood the true policy of the British Government.
They do not have one policy
to-day and another tomorrow; they
do not come to a conclusion very hastily upon any matter. After making enquiry
into all that related to the Colonies, and
the prospect of the Reiciprocity Treaty
being abrogated, they had made up their
minds maturely. They have, no doubt,
like other men, erred in managing the
affairs of this great Empire, but they do
not arrive at an hasty conclusion, one
that can be repealed by our sending a delegation to have an interview of a few
hours, even although it consisted of two
of our ablest men. I should have thought,
however, that one delegate was sufficient.
The late Attorney General should have
been left to look after the business of the
country, while the President of the
Council would have been competent to have made lal the repreentations to the British
Government that was necessary. By this arrangement there would have been a saving
of five hundred pounds
to the tax-payer": of this Province. The
last two delegations sent home by the late
Government to make arrangements concerning the building of Railroads cost
only $900 each, while this delegation cost
$3,558, which is a larger sum than was
given last year for all our bye roads in the
County of Westmorland. I think they
compete with the Government of the
Mother Country, collectively and individually, in reference to their great British
Colonial policy without having a conferee
to assist him, but this delegation should
not have been sent at all, and I do not
believe it twould have been sent if the
Government, during the sitting of the
House at the last session, had communicated to the House information which they
had of the views of the Mother Country
upon the question. We should economize
the public money. I have always opposed
delegations. The basis of all Governments is money, without which we cannot
pay our liabilities, or keep up with the requirements or the improvements of the
country; therefore, we should look closely into the way in which the public money
is expended, and although two or
three thousand dollars is a small amount
yet there in a principle involved in it that
when money is squandered it is our duty
to express our dissatisfaction; and so it is our duty to express our dissatisfaction
when the Govenrment violate the known laws of the country. What puts the criminal
in the box? It is for violating the
laws of his country. Should we then
permit the Government , who violate the
known laws of the country, as I can show
their Governmental power and influence.
Some years ago, in a conflict like this,
my late brother, who was then a member
of this House, and in whose political
school I was trained, said that the Government of that day had violated the laws
of the country in not appointing comissioners to build the Railroad, as required
by law , they having taken it upon themselves to build it by private individuals.
There was a principle involved in this,
and my hon. colleague Mr. Smith, and
my late brother, were side by side on
that question. They said, if we allow the
Government to volate the laws of the
country in one instance, where would
they stop them? TheGovernment of
the day was defeated on this principle.
I can show a like principle involved in
this debate. (Mr. Gilbert then read the
law regarding the appointment of Auditor
General, and continued.) Here is the law
which is just as much the law of the land
as the law which creates this Parliament
given the electors the right to vote, or
gives the candidates the right to offer for
this House. If you look at the public
accounts, you will find some $25,000 remaining in the handa of the deputies at
the end of the present year, scattered
throughout the Province. The Auditor
Genertal stands between the Government
and the people, to audit, examine and
vouch all accounts, he having a judicial
power to summon witnesses from any
part of the Province, and examine them
on oath, in explanation of proof and
vouchers. Have not the Government
violated the laws of the country in not
appointing this officer? What can a Government do to cause the representatives of
the people to withhold their confidence from them, if that is not sufficient?
T.P.D.
Cet individu a participé aux :
