258
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
TUESDAY, April 17, 1866.
The House met at 3 o'clock.
UNION OF THE COLONIES.
Mr. MILLER presented a large number of
petitions from Antigonish on the subject of
Confederation.
Mr. ROSS presented two petitions from St.
Anns' on the same subject.
The adjourned debate was resumed.
Mr. S. CAMPBELL said:—I quite concur with
those gentlemen who have attributed to this
subject a magnitude and importance second
to none that has ever been discussed in this
House. Notwithstanding that there has been
a good deal of excitement brought into this
debate, and something more than excitement,
a good deal of temper, it shall be my endeavor
so to moderate my tone and language that not
only shall these be in keeping with Parliamentary decorum, but the remarks which I
have to
offer shall be otherwise entitled to the calm
and sober consideration and reflection of the
members around these benches. In short I
shall not, in addressing this Assembly, exhibit any other demeanor or style of intercourse
than that which I practice everywhere.
On looking at the past I find satisfaction and
comfort in the reflection that my bearing in
the debates that have taken place here has
been such as to enable me to meet gentlemen
on all sides in pleasant relations, and I hope
that in the future nothing will transpire to
alter the character in those relations. On this
subject, sir, I cannot but express regret that
those from whom a better example should
have proceeded should not have preserved
something like moderation and decorum.
Those who are in opposition are always most
likely to be excited, but those in charge of a
great measure such as this, especially the
members ot'the government of the country,
should ever feel it incumbent upon them
so to guard themselves in this respect that
no one here or elsewhere can possibly offer
an objection to the course they have pursued.
And, sir, I feel in observing on this portion of
the discussion, that I have reason to charge
the Provincial Secretary with having imported into this debate matters which should
never have been brought here. He has alluded
to the press—that is a branch of our constitution, if I may so term it, that ought
not to be
so frequently and so prominently referred to
here. We know that on all sides and on all
subjects political characters are apt to speak
and write strongly and to go to those extremes
which cannot be justified in or out of Parliament. But in my view, it was unjust in
him
to attribute licentiousness to one portion of
the press rather than to others, for on all sides
we find observations, criminations, and recriminations, which render both liable to
censure.
The less that is said in this place about the
press the better, and with this remark I shall
dismiss all further allusions to that branch of
the subject. But the Provincial Secretary was
not content with references to the press, he introduced into the debate other authorities
and
influences that should not have been referred
to here. Least of all should he have brought
here the name of that illustrious lady, the
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
259
Queen of these realms, one whom, by virtue
of her position no less than by the virtues that
surround her throne, every British subject is
bound at all times to venerate. That Sovereign not only commands the respect of every
subject of her Crown—her virtues are not
alone the theme of every British lip and the
pride of every British heart, but surrounding
nations attest her worth and admire her example. But it is a gross breach of parliamentary
decorum to mention that name here. Disloyalty has been charged upon those who
stand in opposition to the present proposition;
as one I repel it with indignation. It is not in
my nature, as it is not in my name, to harbour
for an instant a disloyal sentiment. I can
proudly appeal to the history of our country
and ask if any who have borne the name
which I have the honour to bear, could ever
be supposed to be tainted with that vile
trait? Sir, as a British subject, entitled to
the free exercise of an undoubted right, I
intend to deal with this question, and if,
in doing so, any aspersion touching my loyalty to my Sovereign be cast upon me, I
shall hurl it back with utter contempt and thorough indignation upon its author. Sir,
I regret,
deeply that Her Majesty's name has been
brought into this discussion; I do not regard
it as of so much consequence that Her Ministers have been mentioned, because it is
at all
times the privilege and indeed the duty of
every subject to criticise their acts. We have
been told too that the Queen's representative
in this country was in favor of the present
measure;—sir, I attach the same importance
and distinction to the representative of the
crown as to the crown itself; it is Her Majesty
speaking by her properly authorized agent,
and the rules which apply to the exclusion of
the Queen's name from debates in Parliament
should apply equally to the exclusion of the
Lieut. Governor's name. We have been also
told that the General in command and other
distinguished individuals, civil, religious and
military, are combined in favor of the measure.
But, sir, notwithstanding all this potential
phalanx that is arrayed in its favor I feel that I
am a free man, I claim the rights and attributes
of a free man, speaking in the presence of a
British free Assembly, I have the right to
criticise the judgment they have formed
and an equal right to give expression
to my own. Therefore when this list
of authorities is paraded before us I cannot but feel that it is an empty parade—
it is worth nothing in my estimation—it does not
weigh a tittle in the scale. I feel, sir, and I
claim the right to express the sentiment, that
those individuals, eminent though they be, are
not more capable of forming an opinion upon
this subject than myself, and I might add that
my judgment is formed under the influence of
a responsibility which does not attach to them.
in saying this I mean no disrespect to any of
them, and I feel well assured that none of
them would charge me with any design of disrespect. I therefore think that the allusions
to which I have referred were unjust and reprehensible attempts to influence this
Assembly. What is the measure that we are now
called upon to sanction? Twist it or turn it
as you please, it is no less than a decided
change in our constitution; and how has the
scheme effecting that change been brought
here? Have the people of this country at any
time suggested the expediency of the proposal
to the government or to the legislature? No
sir. This house was elected entirely independent of that question—it was not before
the people when we were elected. Had the case been
otherwise we should not perhaps have seen
the faces of some gentlemen who are sitting
here to-day. It seems, however, that a good
many years ago the question of a Confederation of the British North American Colonies
was propounded in this house:—I would ask
those who were present at that time whether
it was intended to be a practical measure—a
proposition to result in anything, or was it a
more theoretical declaration of the abstract advantages of union? No one can presume
to
say that it was anything more than the latter.
Again, some years ago this house, by a pretty
large majority, declared it expedient that a delegation should proceed to England
to confer
with delegates from the neighbouring Provinces to ascertain whether it was not desirable
and practicable to effect a union between the
Maritime Provinces of British North America.
But, sir, that was a very different idea from
that now pressed upon our attention. What
is the condition of these Maritime Provinces?
Their people are situated in connection with
each other—are possessed of the same interests, have the same common sympathies, residing
on each other's borders, and having daily
intercourse with each other. Is that the character of the people with whom this scheme
is
to force us to unite? Why, as we know, there
is a wilderness between the Lower Provinces
and Canada, we have no sympathies or interests in common with the people of that country.
They are as much strangers to us as the
people of West Indies. Surely those gentlemen
who talk so vociferously about disloyalty can
have no sympathy with the people of a Colony
in which disloyalty has been so rife as it has
been in Canada. This House proposed a delegation for a union with a people with whom,
as I have said, we had many interests in common, and who, if the union were consummated,
would form with us one homogeneous whole.
What then happened? For some reason or other
those charged with the authority to perform
this duty which I have mentioned felt themselves at liberty to disregard the authority
of
this House. They went to Prince Edward
Island and there they found another body of
gentlemen from Canada,—instead of turning
back as they should have done, and asking
this Legislature to concent to a conference with
delegates from that country they ignored our
feelings and authority and went straight into
the arms of the Canadains delegates. That
was the first step and it was a fatal step—a
step subversive of the powers of the Legislature, and injuries to the feelings and
interests
of the people of this country. That was the
step which has caused so much agitation, so
many heartburnings, if not worse, throughout
this country. Had they come back here and
told the people of this Province that they failed
in their original mission, and that no Union of
the Maritime Provinces could be effected, they
would at least have afforded the people an opportunity of saying how far they ware
disposed
to go into the large a question ;they did not do
this, but they took upon themselves the whole
responsibility of concoccting the scheme called
260
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
Quebec scheme. Many gentlemen have hitherto spoken of the scheme then arranged, but
I have been surprised that long as it has been
before scarcely one syllable has been utterd in
this debate in referance to it. It has been
praised abroad as a great and magnificent
scheme, but what is its position now? "But
yesterday it might have stood against the world,
now none so poor to do it reverence," and it is
here, or not here just as men may choose.
We have heard something about the petitions
presented to this house against Confederation,
we have yet heard nothing of petitions in its
favor. And now we are asked to deliberately
ignore the expressed sentiments of this people :
we are told that these petitions are to be disregarded, and that no notice is to be
taken of the
rights of the electors. We are reminded of the
action of the British Parliament in dealing with
the Reform question, and we are told that that
measure involved an important change in the
constitution of the country and no one ever contended that Parliament was incompotent
to deal
with it without reference to the people; but,
will any one tell me that the questson was not
before the people of Great Britain before the
last General Election? That is the answer
which I give to those who assert that this legislature has the right to deal with
an irrevocable
change in the Constitution, and refer to the action of the British Parliament in justification
of
the step. The subject of Reform was, as I have
stated, before the people of England previously
to the General Election held there, and if it had
not been for the influence of one of the greatest
statesmen that England ever saw, that question
would have had more beariug on the results of
that election than it had ; gentlemen, therefore,
must not refer to that as any example for denying to the people of this country the
opportunity
of passing on the present measure. lt has in
deed been pretended that the people of this
country are in favor of this important step, but I
ask gentlemen around these seats it they can say
so consistently with the honest and deliberate
sentiments ot their minds, unoperated upon by
any pressure? Is there a majority here who
will say that the majority of the people are in
favor of the Quebec scheme ? No sir, I will not
be content with that, I will ask is there a majority of the people in favor of any
union? I deny it, and I have some means of fortifying the
assertion. In the course of the last two years
since the question has been agitated in the
country, there have been no less than three
appeals to the constituencies of this
Province, and they are not by any means the
most inconsiderable of our constituencies. There
is the county of Annapolis which for many
years elected to a seat within these walls a gentleman who, without reference to politics,
I
would say was one of the first men in this country, and the fact of their returning
that gentleman proves the electors of that county to be
among the most intelligent constituencies of the
Province. Since this question has been agitated that constituency has spoken, and
how?
By an immense majority it returned the present
member, Mr. Ray. Another constituency, one
of the most populous and thriving in the Province, that of Lunenburg, was opened.
Shall I
be told that the question was not before the
people of Lunenburg ? I heard one of the representatives of that connty, Mr. Kaulback, say
to yesterday, but I have in my possession testimony that will confirm me in the statement
that that constituency pronounced on this question when by a very large majority they
elected
the present member, Mr. Hebb. I go then to
the township of Yarmouth, and the gentlemen who represent that constituency need not
be ashamed of it—for if there be a portion of
the province in which active industry and enterprise prevail, it is the township of
Yarmouth
Her ships are on every sea. Look abroad at all
quarters of the globe, and you see Yarmouth
ships and Yarmouth men. When I am told,
then, that the opinions of this constituency are
to be disregarded, or that their views upon this
measure were not expressed, I feel that I must
turn a deaf ear to such statements, because they
are abundantly contradicted by the facts and
circumstances. But some gentlemen argue that
on this question, of all questions, the people
should not be appealed to, because the people
would decide on other issues and not on this.
From whom does this statement come ? Does
it not come from those who ought to use language more respectful,—language precisely
the
reverse—from the administration which the
breath of the people has created ? It comes
faom gentlemen who hold their offices by virtue
of the popular voice, and yet the inhabitants of
this country are to be told that they are incapa
ble of pronouncing a judgment on this particular question; that other subjects would
be
introduced, and that no decision could be obtained upon this particular subject. Have
the
peeple lost all discernment and discrimination
that this, the most important question that ever
agitated the public mind, is one upon which no
reliable opinion could be formed and expressed.
Sir, I think very differently of the people; I
believe they would appreciate the magnitude of
the proposition. and while they would be disposed to condemn much of the public conduct
of the administration, their intelligent discernment would lead them to sink all other
considerations and all other questions of policy, in
order that upon this they might pronounce the
decisions of their minds and hearts. It will be
perceived that I am for submitting this question to the people. Sir, I hold that in
a matter
which concerns their interests for all time to
come, it is our duty to them. But taking the
argument of the other side, and supposing that
the people are not as intelligent as I assert they
are, there is another mode of testing their opinions. and that is by submitting to
them the
question of Confederation, pure and simple.
We are told that this is not a British practice—
that there is no precedent for this ; but I reply
that we have on our statute book a precedent
established by a gentleman long before the public eye, and now holding an important
public
position, I refer to the Judge in Equity. The
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
261
provisions of the Municipal Corporation Bill
required that it should be submitted for every
man to vote upon, favorably or otherwise, and I
therefore maintain that we have an illustrious
precedent for the course that we suggest. But
if there were no precedent, I might properly introduce here what was improperly introduced
the other day by the Att. General, a reference
to the law of necessity—I would say, here is a
case the like of which has never occurred, and for
which there can be no precedent,—here is an
unparalleled case, and therefore we are justified in
establishing a precedent We can find no precedent for the attempt to subvert and destroy
the constitution of the country, and hence I
think that in this special emergency we are not
merely at liberty but are abundantly and imperatively called upon to take that course
which
will best meet the necessities of the case and
promote the interests of the people. It lies not
upon us who oppose this measure, but upon
those who insist on its passage, to prove the
necessity uncalled for by the people for taking
away the institutions of the country. Sir, I
was astonished when I was told yesterday that
in addition to all the arguments that could be
adduced in favor of Confederation the circumstance that all the lawyers and trained
politicians
were in favor of it should be a reason for the
adoption of the scheme without any appeal to
them. Sir, I protest against such a doctrine, and
the people will protest against it, and I fancy
I can hear them say—" It is all very well for
the lawyers and trained politicians to be in favor of the measure, they are those
who are to
be most largely benefitted by the change—these
are the men who are to be the ' upper ten.'"
That is something like the language that they
will use, not will it be inappropriate. But, sir,
it is not for lawyers or for trained politicians
that we are to act in this place. This is the
people's house ; their interests must be the polar-star of every man's action here,
and this measure is to affect those interests for weal or for
woe for ever.
Mr. S. CAMPBELL continued. After the
course which the hon and learned member has
taken, nothing he can say will at all affect my
sensibilities, and I think his remarks will pass
with little notice at the hands af every one else.
But, sir, while he has suggested to my mind
this observation upon the course which he has
pursued, I will not suffer myself to be hurried
into a charge against any member
of being a traitor. I shall pursue the course
which my conscience suggests, and leave it to
others to settle their own course before the
same tribunal. I hope the verdict may give
the same satisfaction as that which I am now experiencing. I have referred to the
necessity for
an appeal to the people, and if I stood alone, I
would insist on the propriety and the justice of
that cause, But, sir, we have been told that because Fenianism is rampant, and because
the
Reciprocity Treaty has been abrogated, we
should go into Confederation. Before the Re
ciprocity Treaty existed we were not confederated, and l have too much faith in the
industry and
enterprise of our people to imagine that the repeal of that treaty will materially
impede our
progress. As regards Fenianism, I am at a
loss to see the connection between that subject
and this. If New Brunswick be threatened, does
any one feel it to be necessary to confederate for
greater security ? In view of that state of
things, I ask myself—Does the British Government intend to retain these Provinces
or not ?
If they do, New Brunswick is safe—Confederation
will not make it safer. If the United States desired to have possession of British
North America, and Great Britain be unwilling to defend
us, is Confederation going to save us ? We
have heard the story about defences. Well, I
am but a young soldier, but I cannot understand
how on that branch of the subject any argument
can be founded. British North America is now
a portion of the British Empire, the people of
these colonies owe fealty and allegiance to the
British Crown, and while that allegiance is given
and that fealty paid, a corresponding duty rests
upon the British Government to afford protection to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and
Prince
Edward Island, on the same ground as that on
which they protect Kent, Surrey, or Middlesex,
or any other county of the British Isles. Sir, I
assert that Great Britain is not only bound but
is disposed to maintain her authority in these
countries, and to afford us protection as British
subjects. As a Nova Scotian and as a British
subject dwelling upon British soil, I shall be prepared at all times to sanction any
means of cooperation with the British government to maintain in these colonies the
integrity of the British
Empire.
It has been said, and truly said, that Confederation will not give us a man or a pound
more
than we have now. No one in this house has
argued the question in a military point of view,
but even arguing it in that aspect nothing can
disturb the fact to which I have referred, that we
would have no greater power than now, and it is
a libel on the British Government to say that if
we do not adopt the scheme we will be deserted.
No sir, I believe that England would no more
desert us in the hour of extremity than a parent
would desert his child in the hour of danger.
It is not the desire or intention, it has never
been the policy of the British government to
deal with these Provinces in any other manner
than comported with the wishes of the people
Reference has been made to the despatches of
Mr. Cardwell,—I wish that statesman were here
on the floor of this House to-day to hear, as he
would, that it is the desire of a number of members, and of the majority of the people
of this
country that the question should be submitted
for their consideration at the polls. Were he
here I feel safe in saying that as a British statesman charged with the protection
of Her Majesty's
subjects, he would not hesitate to command the
government of this country to submit the measure to the people. The British government,
as
I have said , have no other interest in dealing
with us than to further our wishes. Let us go
262
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
back to the period when the mother country gave
us a constitution ; what was the language of the
Imperial ministry then ? It amounted to this,
" Only tell us what you want and you shall have
it, you shall be governed according to the well
understood wishes of your own people, we will
not interfere, the constitution which you propose
shall be the one that we will maintain." That
constitution has continued to be ours from that
day to this, and it is one that I will strive to
guard. It does indeed come with a bad grace
from men brought, I may almost say, from the
backwoods of the country, who but for that constitution would never have dreamed of
being
elevated to the positions they now fill,—I say it
comes with a bad grace from them to strike down
the constitution from which they have derived
such distinction. I trust that they will pause
before doing so, and if they reflect for a moment
upon the consequences of the present measure,
if they reflect that when once done it cannot be
undone, that this decree which we are called upon
to pass will be irrevocable and irretrievable, they
will see how great will be the evils that must ensue. If we have a ministry that is
not agreeable
to our wishes, and that does not promote the interests of the country, we may bear
with it for a
while, knowing that the time will come when the
people will assert their rights and substitute better men, but in reference to this
measure only
pass it now and it will be passed forever—the
doom of Nova Scoita will then be sealed. I
have not said a word as to my views respecting
union in the abstract. I find Nova Scotia a
happy, prosperous, loyal country ; I find her on
the high road of progress and advancement, a
country in which every man may pursue industry
in any branch he may select, a country enjoying
civil and religious liberty in the largest degree,
I find her a comparatively untaxed country, enjoying blessings and advantages not
to be found
in any other country beneath the sun, and these
are to be lost or to be perilled for what ? Where
is the necessity for the change ? Until I can see
some greater necessity than I now see, my ban
ner shall be Nova Scotia for Nova Scotians, my
device shall be that the privileges we now enjoy
shall be maintained inviolate. At present "I
seek no change, and least of all such a change as
this would bring us." Mr. Speaker, I hold in
my hand a resolution which I intend to offer in
vindication of my position. I trust it will meet
with the concurrence of a large number of members.
This resolution recites among other matters
the fact that an unauthorized conference was
held at Quebec. It further recites the proceedings, and generally covers the ground
and antecedents of the present question. In reference to
the present condition of the Province—I mean
the present crisis of alarm and danger—I would
ask in what position would every man who truly
loved his country desire to see her stand ? He
would desire to see his countrymen one in heart,
and hand in hand, without any question agitating
their minds in connection with political considerations. Our people, especially at
the present
moment, should have but one object in view,—
to arrest the common danger and save the common country. At such a crisis it is above
all
things necessary, just, and wise, that there should
be but one sentiment abroad—that of loyalty to
the British Crown, and that of a determination
to sustain the integrity of the British Empire.
It is because an agitation such as this measure
is inducing will produce consequences of an unfavorable character, consequences affecting
the
regard of the people for the institutions under
which they live, and dividing their power to resist
an enemy, if an enemy should venture an attack;
it is because, in addition to the other objections
which I have stated that I am apprehensive of such
results as these, that I ask this house to pause
before they consummate a union which the people do not desire—one in fact against
which
they have petitioned, and that at a time when
they should be found warm in their allegiance,
as united as one man to protect the soil on
which they live and upon which they hope to
die. In opposing this perilous consummation, I
am discharging my duty to my constituents, to
myself, and to the country at large. I do trust,
that wedded though some gentlemen in high
position maybe to this measure, the house, in
view of the present danger, will stop at the point
of consummation of this act. It may matter not
to me individually what the decision of this
house may be; it may be that in the changes of
political life, when the term of this Legislature
expires, I may not be found again within these
walls, or have the ambition to seek another
county for the advancement of my position—but
there are those behind us whose interests to all
futurity are involved, and in their name I beseech
the Government of the country, the constitutional guardians of the people, to pause,
ere they
force upon a loyal population a scheme against
which the country is arrayed, and which must
inevitably engender feelings which will militate
in all time to come with the true interests of
that common country within whose borders it is
our pride and privilege to dwell. Entertaining
these opinions, I offer for the consideration of
the house the following amendment ;—
"Whereas certain resolutions were adopted at a
Conference of Delegates from the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick,
and the
Colonies of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island,
held at the city of Quebec on the 10th day of October,
1864, as the basis of a proposed Confederation of
those Provinces and Colonies.
" And whereas such Conference was held without
the authority or sanction of the Legislature and people of this Province.
" And whereas, since the holding of such Confer
ence, and the adoption of such resolutions, no genera1
election has been held in this Province, but three
special elections in the important constituencies of
Annapolis, Lunenburg, and Yarmouth, have taken
place; and at such elections the people at the polls
have expressed themselves as decidedly hostile to
the proposed Confederation, and the members elected by such constituencies are prepared
to act in
obedience to the declared wishes of their constituencies.
" And whereas, during the last, and at the present
session of the Legislature of this Province, petitions
very numerously signed, and coming from every
constituency in Nova Scotia, have earnestly prayed
that this House would refuse its concurrence in the
arrangement for the Confederation in question; and
further, that no measure, involvmg a fundamental
263
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
change in the institutions of the country, should be
attempted to be passed by any Government until the
people were afforded the opportunity of giving a
legitimate expression to their wishes respecting it
at the polls.
" And whereas, with a single exception, no petitions have ever been presented to this
House praying
for the ratification of such or any other scheme for
Confederation, and in the absence of a decided and
distinct expression in favor thereof, by a large majority of the people oft his Province.
it would, especially
at the present crisis, be unwise, and dangerous to
the peace and general interests of the country, to
force the same upon the acceptance of its people.
"Resolved therefore, That it is the opinion and
sense of this House that the Government and Legislature of this Province should be
no parties to the
consummation of any scheme for the Confederation
of the British North American Provinces and Colonies, until an opportunity shall have
been first
afforded to the several constituencies of the Province
at large to express their views and opinions thereof
in a constitutional manner at the polls."
SPEECH OF DR. HAMILTON.
Dr. HAMILTON said:—If ever there was a
question of magnitude before the Legislature
it is the one which is now under discussion.
I would have wished that this question had
been discussed more on its own merits, but unfortunately it has assumed a party aspect
to a
large extent, and a great deal of irrelevant
mater has been introduced. It is a subject
which has agitated the public mind for a length
of time, thougth it has never assumed so serious
an aspect as at present. There are two or three
points in which this question may be viewed.
I will say first that any question should be
considered first in reference to its merits, and
again in connection with the partiess who are
in favour or are opposed to it. There is
now
some ground upon which to base an argu-
or there is not. In all the discussions that I
have heard since this question has been up
there are few persons who have taken that
stand upon it which it appears to me its merits
demand. As one of the people of Nova Scotia, as one having an interest in its welfare,
in
every particular, 1 would like to see the question settled on its own merits for the
benefit of
this Province as well as of all British North
America. It is one which not only affects us
at the present time, but for our future for weal
and woe. Consequently a hasty decision or
an improper action might be calculated to injure this Province irremediably. It is
true the
question has been before the public for some
time. It has been discussed since the delegation returned from Canada, as well as
in the
Press, though not in that intelligent and deliberate manner necessary to enable the
people to come to a fair and honest conclusion.
We are here as a part and parcel of the
British Empire—lying between the Atlantic
and the Pacific—and we must be very materially aflected by whatever position the question
assumes in the future. In considering this
question, we must not look at it in its pounds,
shillings and pence view only, but in connection with our duties to the British Empire.
Changes are continually going on in the world,
in reference to political questions more especially. We find that the constitution
which
Nova Scotia had some thirty or forty years ago,
cannot be that of the present day. Refinement,
education, and the resources of the province,
are daily and gradually improving—we have to
pass and amend laws continually, as the country progresses. I regret that this question
should have assumed the party aspect it has.
Like Education, it should be kept free from
anything that may give it a party character,
and should be determined in accordance with
the best interests of the people. The future of
these Provinces, as consolidated, has been fully
portrayed by a great number of gentlemen who
have preceded me and spoken on the subject,
and therefore it will not be necessary for me to
deal with that part of the question. It is true
that Nova Scotia is a choice little province, and
has got along very well for the last fifty years,
and I would be quite content to let things go on
as they are, if I had a guarantee of their continuance. Whilst we have not this guarantee,
it is necessary to prepare for any emergency
that may arise. If the Provinces were consolidated into one empire—perhaps that term
is too extensive—or a Confederation, we would
have unity of action, design and sentiment. If
that would be the result we would have union
which is strength, population which is wealth,
and knowledge which is power. I think a confederation of British North America might
be
so arranged and so adapted to our wants and
circumstances that their combination would be
brought about to benefit the whole. I will sun-
pose that the United States had remained different and independent States, and had
not united, what would have been the result? Would
the 13 States he the 32 United States with all
the power and influence that they now exercise
under the one government managed by one general legislature—with identity of interest,
purpose and design. If each had chosen its own
president—its own representatives—arranged
its own trade relations, customs. and revenues
would not the state of things on this continent
present a very different aspect at this present
time. I want to know if Massachusetts could
have become the great manufacturing state she
now is, if the hostile tariffs and arrangements
that exist between the States were in force The
question has been asked if we have territory
enough to form a Confederation. As far as
territory is concerned, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from 42 degrees
to the
North Pole, British North America is much
larger than the present United States, and is
under British control. I think that this territory is enough to form a small kingdom
to connection with the British Empire. I don't
think I can do better than to read an extract
from a work, speaking of the territory that
would form the proposed Confederation.
" 1. Come from whose hand it may, the resolution before the committee opens for discussion
the broadest
field, the noblest subject ever presented to the consideration of this Legislature.
A day, or even a week,
may be well spent upon such a theme. If, sir, such
topics were oftener presented here our ideas would
expand beyond the charmed, it may be, but the contracted circle of party disputations
; our debates
would assume a higher tone; and the hopes and aspirations of our people, clustering
around their fire-
aides, would point to interests more enduring than
264
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
even the result of half our controversies—some poorly paid office, or paltry Provincial
institution
2. But yet, rising with the magnitude of this great
theme, I shall endeavour to catch its inspiration; remembering only that I am a Nova
Scotian, the son
of a loyalist, a North American, a true subject of the
Queen; but one whose allegiance, to be perfect, must
include every attribute of manhood, every privilege
of the empire.
3. In no vain spirit do I wish also that the sentiments which I am about to utter
might be heard and
pondered, not only as they will be by those who inhabit half this continent, but by
members of the British Parliament, by Imperial statesmen, by the Councillors who stand
around, and by the Gracious Sovereign who sits upon the throne.
4. Sir, the first question which we men of the
North must put to ourselves is, Have we a territory
large enough of which to form a nation? At the risk
of travelling over some of the ground trodden over
yesterday by the learned member for Annapolis. I
think it can be shown that we have. Beneath, behind, and around us, stretching away
from the Atlantic to the Pacific. All Europe, with its family of
nations, contains but three million seven hundred
and eight thousand, or two hundred and ninety-two
thousand miles less. The United States include three
hundred and thirty thousand five hundred and seventy-two square miles, or seven hundred
and sixty-
nine thousand, one hundred and twenty-eight less
than British America.
5. We North americans, living under the British
flag, have one-ninth of the whole, and this ought to
give us " ample room and verge enough" for the accommodation and support of a countless
population.
6. The great Province of Canada is equal in size to
Great Britain, France, and Prussia. Charmed by
her classic recollections, how apt are we to magnify
every thing in the Old World, and to imagine that
Providence has been kind to her alone. Yet the
noble St. Lawrence is equal in proportion to the Nile
—the great granary of the East which, from the days
of patriarchs, has fed millions with its produce. Take
the Italian's Po, the Frenchman's Rhone, the Englishman's Thames, the German's Rhine,
and Spaniard's Tagus, and roll them into a stream equal to the
St. Lawrence The great lakes of Canada are larger
in volume than the Caspian Sea; and the Gulf of St.
Lawrence (with which we are so familiar that we forget what it is), contains a surface
of one hundred
thousand square miles, and is as large as the Black
Sea, on which the proud fleets of four hostile nations
may at this very moment be engaged. Accustomed
to think and feel as Colonists, it is difficult for us to
imagine that the Baltic, illustrated by Nelson's
achievements and Campbell's verse, is not something
different from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and yet it is
not. Its dimensions are about the same; its climate
rigourous; its coast originally sterile, and the sea
kings and warriors who came out of it, made of no
better stuff than are the men who shoot seals on the
ice flakes of Newfoundland, till farms on the green
hills of Pictou, or fell trees in the forests of New
Brunswick."
I think it would not require anything more
from me to show that there is territory enough to
make a nation, which I trust, if it does come to
that—will be ruled by the mild sway of Queen
Victoria. In this extensive territory we have a
great many natural advantages—we have agricultural capabilities, we have forests and
the
fisheries, iron, coal and gold, and a variety of
other sources of wealth. It is water power, coal
and iron that enable a country to excel in manufactures. We have spread all over the
face
of the country these substantial elements to
make a people great. I need not speak of the
harbours bars and rivers, for they are innumerable. There is no more healthy climte
in the
world than we have in British North America.
We are away from the fever of the South; and
it is true we have cold, severe winter in many
parts of the Provinces, but, at the same time, it
always invigorates the body and improves the
activity of the mind, and renders the people who
occupy this territory equal in physical vigor
and mental power to those of any portion
of the world I might refer you to statistical
tables to shew the health of the country, but I
do not wish to weary you. In this territory we
have about 4,000,000 of population, rapidly increasing. That population consists of
farmers,
fishermen and miners, seamen, lumbermen, &c.,
who are well calculated to bring to fruition all
the various resources which are necessary for
our support and happiness. There are no conflicting interests between these Provinces.
Nova
Scotia has fishing, mining and agricultural capa
bilities. New Brunswick is agricultural and
lumbering; Canada the same; P. E. Island is
purely agricultaral; Newfoundland is a fishing
community; therefore you have in these Provinces the various elements that constitutc
greatness, and the Union will combine these elements.
Therefore an interchange of commodities would
take place from time to time, as circumstances
require it. There are various objections urged
to a Union with Canada. One is, because she
rebelled in 1837, or rather manifested a rebellious
spirit. I do not like to see that spirit, but if
there was not something of the same kind in
Nova Scotia, there was at least a good deal of
excitement and feeling manifested when Canada
assumed the position she did. In view, however,
of the many evidences of loyalty that Canada
has exhibited in times past, it is hardly worth
while to charge upon her that, many years since
she was dissatisfied in consequence of the existence of political grievances. Canada,
we are
told again, is greatly in debt. If she has an
amount of debt which is greater than that of
Nova Scotia at the present day, but not equal
to that of New Brunswick in comparison with
their respective populations, she has an amount
of wealth to show for it that perhaps no other
Province amoung the whole can show. I think
the debt of Canada is about $21.60 a head; in
New Brunswick it is $23. Nova Scotia is getting fast on to the stage that Canada has
reached.
The last estimate was $16 or $17. By the time
all her public works are completed, she will have
as large a debt as Canada, but whether she will
have as much to show for it as Canada is quite
another question. With regard to thc productive wealth of Canada, there are no less
than
500,000 persons who cultivate the soil directly
or indirectly There are 237,654 persons who
own and occupy farms. The value of the farms
is put down at $464,322,217. The value of products annually raised is no less than
$100,000,000.
She has 2000miles of railway,216 miles of canals,
valued at $16,000,000. She has 40 colleges, with
8,000 students; 8,000 Grammar and Common
Schools, educating 500,000 pupils, and the mos:
perfect system of education in the world. If
this is a country that is dangerous to unite
with, it appears to me that the gentlemen
around these benches misunderstand the resources and state of Canada at the present
time. In
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
265
Canada every fifth person is at school—in Nova
Scotia one-tenth,—that is, under the old law.
The per centage of education in Canada is greater
than that in New York, Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania. I think, therefore, that those
who undertake to say that Canada is a country not
to be desired—that we cannot either properly or
judiciously unite with her—have not taken the
trouble to inform themselves upon these facts
that are within their reach. The greatest misrepresentation has been sent to the country
by the
Anti-Union press concerning Canada. Not a
fight occurs, not a train runs off the track and
kills one or two persons in that Province but it
it is blazoned forth in that press ; but you
hear nothing of the great capabilities of the country, and the surplus of crops and
revenue.—
With regard to the subject of Union and the
Quebec scheme, I shall only remark on one or
two points, for the whole subject has been already most fully and ably discussed.
Some 15
years ago the hon. member for East Halifax introduced a bill to provide for representation
by
population; but I think nothing was done with
it. A few years afterwards it was introduced
again. We had a very unequal representation :
Queens with her population 9,000 had as
large a representation as Pictou with her 29,
000 people. Hants had five, Annapolis three,
and Kings four members, with nearly an equal
population. This discrepancy could not be
accounted for on any just principle This state
of things has been the result of the progress of
time Whenever a dead-lock occurred between
parties, and government necessities demanded
it, the representation of some particular county
was increased. It will be remembered what a
hue and cry was raised when a bill was introduced by the present Judge in Equity to
a ter
and equalize the representation of the country.
My own opinion is that there is no other true
principle than representation by population It
has been said that wealth should be the basis.
When discussing this question with a gentleman
who has since passed away, I asked him: as
Halifax has an amount of wealth equal to Lunenhurg, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth and
Digby combined would you give her the same
representation that all these counties have?
Certainly you would not Take production
again. I might bring statistics to show that
there is more production in Antigonishe than
in any other county in the province, according
to her population. Guysboro is another county
which produces very heavily in fish, etc.
Therefore I cannot see that it is possible to
base representation upon any other principle
than population. My attention has been turned
to this subject ever since the hon. member for
East Halifax introduced the bill I spoke of,
and I have come to this conclusion. If you
form a union with the other provinces, on what
other principle can you base it? You coulp
not base it on wealth, or production, or territory.
Population is the only true and safe principle.
Therefore, so far as that principle in the Quebec
scheme is concerned, it has my hearty cooperation.
With regard to the financial part of the
scheme that has been so fully and ably dealt with
by Mr. Archibald and other gentlemen who are
generally considered au fait with figures, that it
would be idle for me to say anything on the
subject A great deal has been said on the subject, and were I to compare all the calculations
that have been made, you would see what a diversity of opinion exists Take the resources
of Canada and divide it into population, and do
the same with Nova Scotia or any other of the
Colonies, and you will find pretty much the
same result—only a few cents difference. Take
the expenses of the government, and you find
very much the same thing. Canada is obliged
to collect a large amount of revenue on certain
articles of importation, for she manufactures
more largely than we do.
I shall now turn your attention to another feature in this question. Let me sup ose
that there
is an individual desperately sick. The physician
attending him feels hardly able to grapple with
the disease alone, and calls in assistance. The
physicians then hold a consultation, but they may
disagree. How are they to settle the difficulty ?
They will consult the best authorities on the question and the men who have written
and given the
results of their experience, and the issue is that
the weight of authority carries the day. The
same thing may be said in respect to a Court of
Law. The Judges consult the authorities, and
bring to bear all the examples relating to the
case, and decide accordingly. I do not wish to
draw any invidious comparisons between individuals, but I would ask who have advocated
Confederation in Nova Scotia. We find on the list
the late R. J. Uniacke, the present Judge in Equity, Mr. Howe, the Chief Justice,
the Provincial
Secretary, Mr Archibald, Hon. Mr. Henry, Hon.
Mr. McCully, Hon. Mr. Ritchie, and others I
need not now name. Here is an array of men
who have occupied a very prominent position in
Nova Scotia ; every one of these gentlemen have
expressed themselves in favor of Union, and no
better authorities can be cited than they. Mr.
Howe said, years ago, it was the dream of his
boyhood and the purpose of his political life but I
am told that it was only a theory with him—
theory generally precedes practice. Now is the
time to put that theory into practice—never was
there a more auspicuous period to do so than now.
When I say that the most eminent men in this
Province have supported, and are supporting
Confederation, I need hardly add that the same
thing may be fairly stated of the other Provinces.
Whom have we in opposition to this scheme ?
We have the hon. member for Guysboro, who
may be presumed to be the leader of the Opposition since he introduced the amendment
to the
original resolution. We have Mr. Jones, Mr
Andrew Uniacke, and two or three other gentlemen in Halifax. I do not wish to make
any invidious comparisons between these gentlemen.
lf you can produce an array of talent against
Confederation like what I have given as supporting it, I would like to hear of it.
I will merely
say that from the year 1834 up to the present
time I have been a reader of the " Nova Scotian"
266
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
and " Morning Chronicle," and I must confess
that if I have been impressed in favour of Confederation it has been from perusing
the able and
eloquent writings and speeches of Mr. Howe on
the subject Mr. Howe's opposition cannot now
effect anything, he cannot wipe away the principles to establish which he has devoted
his whole
public life. It will be remembered that, some
time ago, he wrote a letter denying that he had
written anything on the subject of Confederation.
Now I have always entertained the opinion
that he has been opposing the scheme from its
very inception by the present government. I
have read his productions so long, that I can detect them anywhere. If he would come
out under his own name. and oppose the scheme fairly
and honorably, I would respect him much more
than I can possibly under present circumstances.
He said he had not written a line to any one, except to his wife A gentleman told
me that he
saw an article that was corrected by Mr. Howe's
own hand; and yet a short time before he published a letter in "The Reporter" which
was copied
generally by the press, stating that he had not
written an article for several months. I received
a letter last night from a friend of mine in the
country, who writes that he hopes the House will
adopt Confederation. He is one of the most influential men in my own county, and has
been an
admirer of Mr. Howe, but he speaks in the strongest terms against the course pursued
by that gentleman on this question. I met a gentleman last
night from Cornwallis, and I asked him what was
the feeling in Kings. " Mr. Howe has done two
things," was the reply; "he has cemented the
Conservatives to a man, and has divided the progressive Liberals from those who are
opposed to
union and progress."
As respects the hon. member for East Halifax,
he has been on both sides of this question. He
puts me in mind of the boy who complained to
his mother that Bill took all his portion of the
bed out of the middle, and he had to lie on both
sides. I regret that he should have introduced
into this debate the reference he made to the
Queen, to the representative of Majesty, and to
Hon. Geo. Brown. It is not necessary to refer
to the papers that support Confederation. It has
been said that clergymen have no right to deal
with matters like this. Clergymen, I contend,
exercise their legitimate functions when they instruct their people in an important
crisis. Therefore I believe that the religious press is only performing its duty in
discussing this question and
advising the people on the subject. Temperate
and argumentative articles have appeared in its
columns, and no fault can be found with it for
pursuing this course. As respects the secular
press, the weight of authority is ln favor of Confederation. The only influential
press that opposes the measure is the Chronicle, and we all
know the inconsistent and extraordinary course
it has pursued. Therefore, whether you take
the leading presses or the ablest minds in the
country, you find the overwhelming weight of
authority in favor of Confederation.
I have had consultation with many leading
men in my own County and they have said that
they believe the time has. come to adopt Union.—
As respects the question of an appeal to the people, that has been very effectually
settled by Mr.
Blanchard and the circumstance which was
brought to the notice of the House by the hon
member for Guysboro does not apply at all. Mr.
Johnston succeeded after a great deal exertion, in passing the Municipal Incorporation
Bill
through the Legislature, but it was with the proviso that it should be left to the
acceptance or rejection by the people. That was the clog put on
it by the Liberal Government. The only two
Wards in Kings that adopted it were those where
meetings were held and the question was fully discussed. An important change took
place some
years ago in reference to Government when the
Departmental System was introduced I do not
remember that it was submitted to the polls. I
believe the peoples' representatives have the right
to judge of the matter themselves. It will be remembered that the Morning Chronicle's second
exposition of a well known despatch from the
Col Secretary was, that it meant "the well understood wishes" of the educated portion
of the
people as expressed by their representatives." Assuming this to be correct, I think
it would be
found that if the present question was submitted
to the polls, we would not get "the well understood wishes of the more intelligent
portion of
the community, as this question would be mixed
up with the school bill, and other matters connected with the government of the day
I believe
the people have the right, not only to discuss
questions of public policy at meetings held for
that purpose, but they have the right of petitioning. I see by the papers that they
have been
holding a meeting at Canning for the purpose of'
discussing this question. This is not the first one
held there. Being a native of the County I represent, and for upwards of thirty years
a pratice
tioner of medicine in Canning and vicinity, I
ought to know the people pretty well, and while
I must acknowledge having received a great deal
of kindness and professional support there, as well
as having very warm political supporters, but there
is no place int he North Riding where political feelings are carried to a greater
extent than in Canning, and consequently where I have stronger
political opponents. There is no difficulty at any
time in getting up a political meeting in Canning,
especially when the subject appears to affect party
interests. I believe this meeting was suggested
by parties in Halifax for the purpose of influencing the votes of the members for
North Kings
on the subject of Confederation. I have some
knowledge of the mode of getting up and circulating petitions, and do not think that
petitions can
always be looked upon as the exact exponent of
public sentiment. Many persons are careless
about the matter and allow their names to be
placed there without considering the subject,
especially when no pecuniary interests are at
stake.
New Brunswick has been referred to in this debate. All I can say is there has been
a great
change in the public sentiment of that Province
since the election a year ago. Every constituency that has since been opened has returned
a Con
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
267
federate ; Fredericton, for instance, returned Mr.
Fisher by an overwhelming majority. This
change must occur wherever the question is fairly
and temperately viewed and discussed. There is
no use denying the fact that the time has come
when we should unite ; everything that is transpiring around us points to that result,
I have not
come to a hasty determination to support this resolution on. This question is like
a jug of yeast
it must. go through a certain amount of ferment ;
but it will come out all right in the end. Mr.
Howe, and Mr. Annand, who are now opposing
this measure, would be the first to put their
shoulder to the wheel and carry Confederation, it
they could come into office tomorrow. Under
these circumstances I do not feel disposed to
stand in the way of a question that mist come
sooner or later These are the convicrions of my
own mind. It is not because I feel disposed to
occupy any preferment. If the House were dissolved tomorrow I should not regret if
I went
home and never returned to public life. I often
wish I had never studied or paid any attention to
political history; it only keeps a person constantly
perplexed.
Let me here. mention what struck my observation on a visit I paid to Canada last autumn.
I
travelled some 3000 miles and attended two Public Exhibitions. I was much gratified
by what I
saw of the great manufacturers Some of the most
delicate surgical instruments are manufactured in
that province. Agricultural Implements are largely produced in the country. The cloth
manufacturers are far beyond anything I had expected
to see. I attended a ploughing match, and there
saw some 102 teams enter for competition ;
tully 6000 persons were present. Never in the
course of my life did I see such excellent work,
but what surprised the particularly was the fact
that I saw a host of boys discussing the merits of
the ploughing. When boys took such an interest as that in ploughing, 1 thought there
need be
no fears as to future agricultural operations in
Canada. Whilst in the Province I mixed as
much as I could with the people, for I wished to
learn all I could about Canada's industrial
resources, the intelligence of the people, and
especially her fruit culture. When persons
found 1 was from the Lower Provinces, they
would ask me, " What are you afraid of ? Why
do the Lower Provinces oppose the Union with
us." I must say that from what I saw of the
Agriculturalists they are a very desirable class
of people to associate with. Under all the circumstances I cannot thlnk we have any
reason to fear
a union with the flourishing province of Canada.
On the contrary I believe that Nova Scotia will be
largely benetitted by the consolidation of all the
Provinces of British North America under one
government and under the protection of ille
British Empire.
SPEECH OF MR. KILLAM.
Mr. KILLAM said: I rise to deliver to you a
message, not from the Lieutenant Governor.
not from the Legislative Council, not from the
Colonial Secretary; but from 16,000 of the
loyal
inhabitants of this province whom I have
the honour of representing in this Assembly.
They are closely identified in interest and feeling with the inhabitants of the other
portions
of the Province, are known far and wide, as
well as in this country, for their industry and
enterprise, were the first pioneers in one of
our great industrial pursuits— one that has
done more to elevate our position and make
Nova Scotia, known far and wide than any
other. This Message is sent to me by these.
To protest in their behalf a aiust a Union of
this Province with Canada, elieving as they
do, that such a. measure will demoralizethe
people, alienate their affections from Great
Britain and endanger British institutions-
transfer our revenues into the hands of strangers, disarrange financial affairs, and
jeopardize our local improvements. We, as the oldest colony of British North America,
have enjoyed a Legislative Assembly for over one hundred and Responsible Government
for 20
years, with full liberty to levy and appropriate
taxes; and to deprive us of these privileges, as
proposed by the resolution, they believe to bo
most unjustifiable. In making these statements they do not arrogate to themselves
any
superiority over other counties. They acknowledge the claims of all other sections
to consideration, and are proud that this is our common country. It is with pride
they remember that they can claim as their own one of the
ablest statesmen that ever stood on the floor
of this house, to watch over the interests of
the people of Nova Scotia. He did not come
here, like our leading men of the present day
prepared to destroy, but to improve the constitution we now possess, and not to hand
over.
this Province to another country, irrespective
of the wishes of its people.
The arguments that have been advanced in support
of this resolution shew that the scheme is more one
of theory than of practice. The argument which
they have most labored is this: that it is necessary to
unite with Canada in order to ensure our common
safety. Everybody admits that numbers are strength ;
but those numbers must be in a position to assist each
other. If you haven large territory, exposed at all
points to danger,—just as Canada,—separated from
you by a great tract of count , you cannot expect
assistance from it. Its union With you does not bring
strength, but weakness—if you are to have trade. it
must be in a position to afford it.—If we look at the
map, and see the configuration of British North America, you can recognize how absurd
are the arguments of the advocates of Union. Nova Scotia has
no natural relation whatever to Canada.
[Mr. Killam here pointed out the relative positions
of Nova Scotia and Canada on the map, and contended that neither in defence nor trade
would we gain any
benefit by union.]
Between us and Canada extends a vast tract of desert country.—If you look at the water
communication, you see how roundabout it is, and unsatisfactory
as far as trade relations are concerned. In winter the
St. Lawrence is closed for five months, and the communication must be made either
by the United states,
or over the uninhabited waste lying between New
Brunswick and Canada. We cannot expect any assistance from that country in case of
war, for the nature of its territory, running along for many hundreds
of miles by the frontier or the American Republic,
requires that all its forces should be ke t at home for
their own defence. In case of a war with th the United
States, therefore, no troops can come from Canada to
our aid.
In case of a Union we could give no aid to Canada
except in a financial point of view—by the revenues
that they would draw from us. Separated from us
as it is, is folly to suppose it could be otherwise.
When in 1783 Great Britain gave up the old colonies
which she had settled on this continent the great
mistake was that they had not all, including Canada,
268
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
been given up in one block. I can give you a good
authority on this point, as some gentlemen may take
issue with me. Lord Brougham, in his historical
sketches of eminent Statesmen, speaking of Sir John
Jervis, says: His sagacity no man ever found at fault,
while his provident anticipations of future events
seemed even beyond the reach of human penetration
He says we shall give a remarkable example of this
matter in 1889, in a matter of deep interest at the present moment—(if of deep interest
then, the interest is much greater now). When Lord Shelburne's
peace (1783) was signed, and before the terms were
made public, he sent for the Admiral, and showing
them asked his opinion. I like them very well, said
he, but there is a great omission. In What? In
leaving Canada as a British Province. How could
we possibly give it up, inquired Lord Shelburne
" How can you hope to keep it," replied the veteran
warrior. With an English republic just established
in the sight of Canada, and with a population of a
handful of English settled among a body of hereditary Frenchmen, It is impossible;
and rely on it you
only retain a running sore, the source of endless disquiet and expense. Would the
country bear it !
Have you forgotten Wolf and Quebec! asked his
Lordship. " Forgotten Wolf and Quebec." No, it
is because I remember both, 1 served with Wolf at
Quebec; having lived so long I have had full time for
reflection on this matter, and my clear opinon is that
if this fair occasion ior giving up Canada is neglected
—nothing but difficulty in either keeping or resigning
it will ever after be known.
It is quite evident that Great Britain has nothing to
be proud of in the management of her affairs as respects the arrangement here spoken
of. She has had
war with the United States and came out of it without accomplishing her objects. Consequently
she
neither acquired honor nor glory as far as the American people are concerned. Nothing
is more probable
that what has been prophesied will occur sooner of
later. I have another extract bearing upon the same
subject, which I do not think gentlemen will say come,
from a disloyal source. Mr. Oliphant, M. P., delivered an address at Stirling on America.
In speaking of
Republican institutions, he said :—
" To his mind there was no spectacle furnished by
the world at this moment se interesting as the 30,000,000 Anglo Saxons working out
by hard experience
the unworked problems of Republican government
In the first place there was no other race fit to cope
with these problems or to understand the principles
they embodied, but that to which we and they belong
Although he did not believe in them for this country,
he did most devoutly believe in republican institutions
for America. As an Englishman he had no sort of objection to the Monroe doctrine and
the spread of Anglo Saxon republics all over the American continent
—the more the better. That was the reason he had
no particular objection to see the Union divided, provided slavery was abolished,
nor did he think it would
matter half as much as Americans imagined. Moreover he thought some day or other it
must come to
that. We shall be quite prepared to see Canada erec
ted into an independent republic, and Australia, when
old enough. There is no reason because we were a
constitutional monarchy, and well satisfied to remain
so, that we should insist upon our Colonies, who had
none of the traditions or associations which had made
us what we are, adopting monarchial institutions after they left us."
Here is a speech delivered by a member of the British Parliament; he believes in Republics
for all America. Look at the geographical position of this continent and consider
what seems to be the most natural arrangement. We have thirty millions of people
directly before us, in every way more conven ent to
us than Canada; they are of the same stock, same
feelings, as ourselves; they have everything that can
make a people great and glorious. If you have to
make any political arrangements, let them be consistent and natural. I do not think
that the people of
Nova Scotia want annexation to the United States
but why should you drive them against their interests
and inclinations into a union with Canada—with
which they have no natural means of communication,
and no sympathy. Why, if our young women were
to attempt to-morrow to go to Canada by way of the
States, they would be courted and married before
they got half-way there.
I have wondered often when I have heard gentlemen
in this Legislature talking of the advantages that will
accrue from Union with Canada. A great amount of
words has been used on the subject, but I cannot
see how our manufactures are to be developed by
Union, Just look at the map, and see where our
products would have to go. Why before they got
there, they would cost so much that the people of
Canada could not afford to buy them when they
could purchase similar articles, which paid duty at
a lower price. We cannot expect to manufacture as
largely as Canada. We cannot compete with her, or
the great manufacturing countries of the world. If
the Provincial Secretary says that a great stimulus
will be given to manufactures, I give him credit for
thinking otherwise, We have now 350,000 people
busily engaged in carrying on all the industrial pursuits that they able to carry
on. We know by the
statement that has been laid on the table that Nova
Scotia owns 400,000 tons of shipping. Consider what
an immense amount of labor and money has been expended to create it ; but also remember
that ten years
hence every one of them must be renewed. We own
more ships in proportion to our population than any
other part of the world, and our experience has
shown that they must be renewed as I have stated.
This renewal will cost an immense sum ot
money. We are carrying on a fishery of a most
extensive character, which must tax to the utmost
the energies of those engaged in it. More vessels
han ever are leaving my own county —filled with
able bodied men, to endure the privations and labors
of a fisherman's life on the Banks. We are largely
engaged in Mining and Lumbering, and Trade—Agriculture engrosses the attention of
a large proportion
of the people. Everybody has his hands full, and yet
you say we want more work. We are now one of the
greatest manufacturing countries of the world in one
great branch; our shipping is a more lucrative source
of wealth than any manafacturies that can be created
by Annexation to Canada.
As to what Mr. Young, Mr. Johnson, or Mr. Howe
may have said, it makes little difference now. It is
the duty of this Legislature to look at the present
circumstances of the country, and provide for its
best interests. We should not wander away from
the subject immediately before us. This Union question has been tried in British North
America and has
failed The Union between Upper and Lower Canada has failed. and now they come asking
us to help
them out of their difficulties. Mr. Brown formed a
coalition with Cartier and Macdonald and they came
meet the Maritime Delegates and persuaded them to
join in a political Union with Canada. Nova Scotia
should pause before injuring herself irremediably for
the sake of helping the Canadians out of their political embarrassments, They got
into a mess, and now
wish to mix us up with it. You have all heard the
story about the Spider and the Fly. The Spider told
the Fly a " fine story, and got him that way into his
mesh, and there was the end of the poor thing."
And it was just so with the Canadians. The Maritime Delegates were dazzled. if not
by Canadian gold,
by fine stories—and thus fell into the net prepared for
them. " We give larger salaries to our public men.
we are more liberal in our expenditure; we shall
have five or six Lieutenant-Governors to appoint—
number of other offices to select from; here is your
chance." This is the language that was probably
used to cajole our delegates. Elated by the prospect
before them, our delegates came back thinking that
the people would take their view of matters. All these
things make people wonderfully loyal at times.
They can hardly bear to hear a whisper about annexation to the United States. Let
us hear what Mr.
Murdoch says in his history of Nova Scotia about a
matter bearing u on this point. At page 448, No.
13., speaking of the excitement in the old American
Colonies in reference to the stamp act, he says :—
" That it was not much felt in Nova Scotia, that
they were satisfied, for the reason that the great
troub'e and expense of the Crown to complete the
conquests here, and the generous aid to settlements
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
269
in Parliamentary grants, all tended to knit their affections. In addition, the great
number of military
and navy who had become inhabitants and the liberality displayed to settlers. Beside
the personal welfare and comtort of so many of our people depended
on the expenditure of public money which flowed
freely hither in naval and military channels and
otherwise."
Things like these make a great many people intensely loyal. Take away their salaries
and their
cocked hats, and their honours, and they become a
good deal like other people. c am not going to acknowledge that I am not as loyal
as an gentleman
who sits on their benches. I love, and wish to live
under British institutions, I have no desire to change
them : but if we are to have a change, if it is necessary, should not every man be
at liberty to say how
that change should be made. Should we press the
people into Union with a country with which they
have no wish to unite, and not allow them to express
their opinions? It is said that the people of Yarmouth
are disloyal—I deny it, they are as loyal, and have
done as much to show it, as any people in the province. When we see our present institutions
about to
be swept away, it is enough to rouse our feelings and
passions.
Gentlemen have had an opportunity of watching
my public conduct for very many years in this house
and country, but can any of them say that I have had
an other object in view except the advancement of
this province. I have done much to place the present party in power; but when I came
here and found
that they were about to desert the principles on
which I had supported them, I left them, and assumed
an independent position. I have pursued this course
whenever the interests of my country demanded it.
I did as much as anyone to advocate the retrenchment scheme. and was pledged to support
it. It has
been charged against me in a paper supporting the
government that I and another hon. member would
not sustain them became 1 could not get office. The
Provincial Secretary knows that I never wanted office; I was above it; I have business
enough of my
own to attend to. I do not think myself suited for
office. I have been tied up to indoor business; but I
had my eyes about me, and saw through the designs
of some political gentlemen. If I had been disposed
to yield to some of them, I cauld have had anything
that I wanted; but that is foreign to my nature. If
I can support a government on principle, I must
leave them. Now these gentlemen with whom I was
formerly associated come here to barter away the
rights and interests of the people of Nova Scotia.
There is no principle in a course like that. It is beneath the dignity of statesmen
to do such a thing, in
the face of public sentiment. Such a union could never last; there would be no unity
of feeling and sympathy. Suppose an election were to come off to-morrow, how many
of the gentleman who are pressing
forward this unjust measure may expect to see Ottawa? Hardly one of them. The members
that will go
to Canada will carry with them a feeling of hostility
to this Province—they will bring discord into the
councils of the Confederation; your present conduct
can lead to no other result, The members of this
House know the sentiments of our people, from Cape
Sable to Cape North, and should hesitate before
pressing this measure rashly upon them. We should
allow more time for the consideration of a question
fraught with such important results. There is no necessity whatever for dealing with
this subject with
such intemperate haste. It is reported, from day to
day, that we are to be invaded by a band of robbers
called Fenians, who wish to seize and destroy our
property; and yet, at this critical time, you are going
to agitate and distract the people of the country, and
to divide one section against another. The people are
quite prepared to meet any invaders, an with the
help of Great Britain. they will be successful—why
then this haste? I do trust that if any words of mine
can have any effect on this House, that a majority
will not be found ready to sell their country to the
Canadians. If the day should come when Nova Scotia will be wrested from us and given
to Canada, it
will be one of mourning and lamentation among the
people. Of course we shall have to submit to it—for
I am not going to counsel rebellion.
We are going to disturb all our financial arrangements, and hand into the Canadian
treasury much
more than we can expect to receive, We have had
revenue enough for our purposes, and when it was
not sufficient we have raised the duties to suit ourselves. If any money is spent
improperly it is soon
made up, and we are able to exercise the strictest
supervision over our expenditures. But now we
are about to entrust the extensive power to the
Parliament at Ottawa, to be used as the Canadians may choose. The sum of 80 cents
a head that
we are to receive is a most contemptible amount to
offer to a people for the amount of money they are to
put into the treasury. We have now a large revenue,
and there is every reason to believe that as our pub
lic works are extended we shall be able to meet our
liabilities. It will be far more satisfactory to have
the management of our own revenues, and to be able
to raise the duties when we think proper. than to entrust the power to a Legislature
800 miles off.
Our trade with Canada is small, not as much as
with Newfoundland or New Brunswick, while the
population is ten times as great. Our exports to that
Province are mostly of Foreign productions. The estimate on which our revenue an expenditure
is based
for the current year, now in the hands of every member, shows that all we should have
to apply for provincial purposes, including the 80 cents per head,
would only amount to $419,000 out of a gross revenue
of about $1 500.000. I have not closely estimated myself what our imports of 1865
with the Canadian tariff would have amounted to, but have been informed
by a competent person who has done so, that it
would have added $680,000 —enough to pay the interest on the $8,000,000 of debt proposed
to be assumed
by the General Government, and leave $220,000.
How is our education, educational institutions, roads,
bridges, Lunatic Asylum, Penitentiaries, Legislative
expenses, and improvements and casualties of every
kind to be provided for. The $419,000 is very little
over half we have in the estimate for this year for
similar purposes, with the present tariff. Mr. Speaker
I thank you and the House for the very attentive
hearing you have given on this important subject.
SPEECH OF THE HON. FINANCIAL SECRETARY.
Mr. MCDONALD then said :—The present
question is one of the most important subjects
that can engage the attention of a free people,
involving as it does their political rights and
condition for all time. It is not therefore to be
wondered at, that each member of this house,
in the discharge of his duty to his constituents,
should be desirous of placing on record the sentiments by which he is influenced in
coming to
the conclusion at which he may arrive. This is
the only excuse I shall offer in detaining the
house with a few remarks on the resolution under consideration. The arguments for
and
against Confederation have been widely disseminated throughout the country—the subject
in the form of the Quebec scheme has been discussed in this house by the Delegates
who originated it, on the public platform, and in the columns of the press. The people
therefore, we may
assume, are more or less familiar with the
grounds and reasons on which the framers and
supporter of the measure ask public support.
It will not be necessary for me, under these
circumstances, to go at any length into the arguments which have influenced my own
mind.
Since this debate arose nothing has been evolved that has not already appeared in
the press of
the opponents of the scheme. The advocates
of Union to-night have not to meet a single argument that has not been previously
consider
270
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
ed and refuted—that the people had not had a
full opportunity of discussing and reflecting
upon. Therefore it is that I shall feel myself at
liberty, as a representative of one of the most
important counties in Nova Scotia, to state in
a very brief and concise manner the reasons
which induce me to support the resolution before the house.
There is one argument which has been used
by the opponents of the scheme which requires
consideration. I admit that, if it be true, it is
a fundamental argument, for it lies at the very
basis of the question we are discussing. It is
one which should therefore be fully and satisfactorily answered before we ask the
people of
Nova Scotia to accept this measure at our
hands. That argument, if I understand it
aright, and as it has been advanced by all the
speakers on the opposite side, and more particularly by the only lawyer who is supporting
the opposition, is this : that we are not in a
position constitutionally to pass on the measure
in this Legislature; that this House, in its legislative capacity, is not competent
to decide upon
this important measure, affecting as we all admit it does to a large degree, the rights
and
interests of the people, without a reference to
them at the polls. If this be true, we are attempting to discuss a question with which
we
have no right to deal—we are assuming a
power and authority which the constitution
does not invest us with—and we would be
guilty of one of the highest crimes of which
public men can stand convicted before the people who have entrusted their rights to
their
hands. If, however, as I contend we have a
right to pass upon this question under the constitution handed down to us from the
earliest
days of constitutional authority then the question assumes a different aspect, and
we have
only then to consider whether it is not for their
benefit and welfare that the people should seek
by this union to become an integral part of
what in a short time must be one of the commanding nationalities of the world.
I must say that I was astonished not only to
hear a lawyer but other members of this Legislature who from their position, ought
to be
somewhat versed in constitutional knowledge—
for I need not tell you it does not require a
legal mind to understand the general principles
of constitutional law upon which the rights and
interests of this Parliament are based—attempt
to delude this House with the style of argument
resorted by the hon. member for Halifax and
the hon. member for Guysborough in dealing
with this important branch of the subject.
The hon. member for Halifax, who is one of
the oldest members of this Legislature, and who
has taken an active part in all the discussions
which have agitated this country, for a long
time, has no excuse for misinterpreting those
principles of constitutional law with which he
should be familiar. Much less should the hon.
member for Guysborough, a gentleman of legal
attainments, who has filled the position of
Speaker of this House, attempt to deal with a
question of such magnitude and dogmatically
assert doctrines in constitutional law without asserting a single authority in support
of his argument. In propounding an argument radically
striking at what I consider one of the highest
privileges of this Legislature, he ought to have
given us the result of his reading, and have
shown this House and country at least one instance in the whole constitutional history
of
England where the right of Parliament to deal
with a question like this was denied. I challenge the hon. member and any gentleman
in
this House who assumes the same views, to
show me in the whole constitutional history of
England down to the present time a single case
in which it was contended that the Parliament
of England, or of any Colony enjoying the
blessing of the British constitution, were not
absolutely and constitutionally authorized in
their legislative capacity to discuss and
finally decide upon any measure which, in their
opinion touched the rights and interests of the
people they represented. I shall not occupy
any time in debating a question which is as
plain as the sun at noon-day. But I feel it important that the people of this country
should
be rightly informed on the question, and see
how baseless are the assertions of those who
contend that the representatives of this House—
that the Legislature of this country, for some.
reasons, have been arrogating to themselves a
power which is not delegated to them by the
constitution and are bartering away most unjustifiably (to quote the hon. member for
Yarmouth) the rights and liberties of the province.
In order that the people and the country may
be satisfied on this point I will read one or two
authorities of very high standing—which are
recognized in England as of the highest weight
in matters of constitutional law and practice.
May in his work on the privileges of Parliament
says :—
"The Legislative authority of Parliament extends
over the United Kingdom and all its Colonies and
foreign possessions, and there are no limits to its
power of making laws for the whole empire than
those which are incident to all sovereign authority—
the willingness of the people to obey, or their power
to resist. Unlike the Legislatures of many other
countries it is bound by no fundamental charter or
constitution; but has itself the sole constitutional
right of establishing and altering the laws and Government of the empire."
In addition to this I shall quote the opinion of
one of the highest authorities on all such matters—from a book which is not only of
the
highest authority, but is familiar to every man
of ordinary reading and information. Sir W.
Blackstone, treating of the power of Parliament
and quoting from Coke, says:
"The power and jurisdiction of Parliament, say
Sir Edward Coke, is so transcendant and absolute
that it cannot be confined, either for cause or persons
within any bounds. And of this high court, he adds
it may be truly said: " Si antiquetatem, spectes, est
vetustistima, si dignitatem est honoratissima, si jurisdictionem, est capacissima."
It hath sovereign uncontrollable authority in the making, confirming, enlarging, restraining,
abrogating, repealing, revising
and expounding of laws concerning matters of all
possible denominations, ecclesiastical or temporal,
civil, military, maratime, or criminal; this being the
place where that absolute, despotic power, which
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
271
must in all Governments reside somewhere, is entrusted by the constitution of these
kingdoms. All
mischiefs and grievances, operations and remedies,
that transcend the ordinary course of the laws, are
within the reach of this extraordinary tribunal It
can regulate or new model the succession to the crown,
as was done in the reign of Henry VIII and William
III. It can alter the established religion of the land,
as was done in a variety of instances in the reigns of
Henry VIII, and his three children. It can change
and create afresh even the constitution of the kingdom
and of parliament themselves, as was done by the act
of the union, and the several statutes for trienial and
septenial elections. 1t can, in short, do anything that
is notnaturally impossible."
I could, if it were necessary, quote other, many
other high authorities to the same purport, recognizing and asserting the powers,
rights, and privileges
of Parliament as they are enunciated by this great
authority. Powers and rights far above what this
resolution asks this House to exercise; and, sir. I
think I have established my right to ask the hon.
member for Guysboro to produce to this house and
the country the authority on which he founded the
bold assertion that the members of this Legislature
are forgetting their duties to the people when they
undertake to consider for the benefit of the country,
not a radical change in the constitution, but simply a
modification of their present relations and circumstances.
If what I have read be sound constitutional
law—if we have the right to consider and finally pass upon this question, I hope we
shall
not again be told we are ignoring the just authority of the people and the duty we
own to
our constituents in our efforts to promote their
interests by multiplying their sources of
wealth, while we secure their enjoyment
of all their just rights and privileges. And
now, sir, we can legitimately examine the expediency of the proposed change, and enquire
whether the Union of these Colonies be a proper and judicious measure on the part
of the
people of this country. But first let me refer
to one view of the question which is perhaps of
some importance, in the opinion of some, and
has indeed been referred to in this debate I
refer to the position occupied in reference to
this question by its present opponents in former
times. It is quite true men may legitimately
change their opinion on public questions, but in
doing so they invite inquiry as to the motives
by which they are actuated and the reasons for
the change—and although I do not think it of
very much consequence, nor will the people of
this country, I imagine think it of much consequence, what have been or are now the
opinions of the Honble member for Halifax, yet
his position in this house as one of the leading
opponents of Union and his well known and recognised connection with a gentleman outside of
this house whose opinions exercise much more
influence in the country than his own—make
it perhaps worth our while to inquire whether it
be true as the hon. member for Halifax has
ventured to assert that neither Mr. Howe nor
himself have ever been committed to a Union
of these colonies. It is quite natural, Mr.
Speaker, that a man like Mr. Howe who for
many years has filled a large space in the public eye, who has borne a prominent part
in the
political contests and changes of many years,
and occupied a foremost position in the discussion of the most important and grave
public
question which have agitated the country for a
quarter of a century—it is natural I say that
the sentiment of such a man should be received by the country with some weight of
authoity. Mr. Howe has recently assumed a position on this great question which his
mouthpiece in this house, the hon. member for Halifax as well as the hon. and learned
member
for Guysboro has sought to justify—while they
have ventured to assert that Mr. Howe was
never committed to a Union of these Colonies,
other gentlemen have called attention to the resolution of 1362 and other public acts
indicating his desire to promote this Union, unless indeed, we accept the shameless
assertion that
their measures were a sham and delusion. I
shall therefore only detain the house by reading one or two paragraphs from a speech
of
former years.
It is not necessary that I should say one word
derogatory to that gentleman, and I am sure I
have no desire to do so I shall compare his
past with his present course, but I shall accord
to Mr. Howe his due influence and position in
this country. Unless I was willing to do so, I
could not venture to ask this House and the
country to contrast his former with his present
opinions, and to ask the people to accept from
his own mouth the evidence which condemns
his present course and that of gentlemen opposite. When he chooses for personal or
other
grounds to recede trom the position he occupied
in former days, he occupies a position which, I
may say, will not be accepted by the country
as worthy of himself or of his past greatness.
Nothing surprises me so much as the hon member for East Halifax who is the Editor
of the
book which I holdin my hand entitled "Speeches
and Public Letters" of Hon. J. Howe, who has
prepared the very evidence on which I intend
to convict both himself and Mr. Howe of attempting to deceive and betray the people
of
this country in the most important matter ever
submitted to them, and who, on more than one
occasion, endorsed the sentiments which Mr.
Howe promulgated to the country on the subject. I wish, sir, I had time to quote a
very
great deal from the volume before me; it is
one which ought to be read more than it is
in this country at this particular time. If I
wished to impress upon the people the necessity of a Union of the Colonies I do not
think
I could do it more convincingly than by scattering this contribution to our literature
over
the face of this country. Sir, it is filled with
arguments in favour of Union, and therefore
it is that the people who have accepted these
opinions of Mr. Howe as of great weight ought
to pause before giving their opposition to these
same views when they are being carried out
by his successors, and not to accept at the
hands of his disciples or of himself views diametrically opposite to those he so long
labour:
ed to inculcate. Mr. Howe on various occasions, in the discharge of his public duties,
advocated not only in this country but in
Great Britain a Union of the Colonies; and
perhaps no colonist (without derogating from
the position of many eminent men who have
justly acquired great influence in this country)
over obtained a higher position in the mother
272
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
country than did Mr. Howe by his intellectual
displays. On one occasion he said:—
" This is the prospect before us, and the duties it
imposes we must learn to discharge with energy; the
destiny it discloses we may contemplate with pride.
England forsees yet fears it not. * * She believes
in the existence of the old feelings here which are to
strengthen with our strength and bind us to her by
links of love, when pecuniary obligations have been
cancelled. She virtually says to us by this offer,
there are seven millions of sovereigns at half the price
that your neighbors pay in the markets of the world;
construct your railways; people your waste lands;
organize and improve the boundless territory beneath
your feet ; learn to rely upon and to defend yourselves
and God speed you in the formation of national character and national institutions."
Again he says:—
" I am not sure, sir, that even out of this discussion
may not arise a spirit of union and elevation of
thought that may lead North America to cast aside
her colonial habiliments, to put on national aspects, to
assert national claims, and prepare to assume national
obligations. Come what may, I do not hesitate to express the hope that from this day she will
aspire to
consolidation as an integral portion of the realm of
England, or assert her claims to a national existence."
This is very significant language from Mr. Howe,
and I now quote Mr. Annand's comments thereon:
" Mr. Howe desired to create a NORTH AMERICAN
NATION, watchful of republican America, even while
pursuing common objects, but in perpetual friendship
and alliance with the British Isles."
Here we have the sentiments of the hon.
member for East Halifax, under his own hand,
nearly eight or nine years ago,—when he did
not expect that his political opponents would
succeed in carrying into effect what he and
Mr. Howe then expressed a desire to form, a
British American Nation. What does this
mean? Is not that a Union of the Colonies?
Or is it some new combination of which we
have not yet heard? The House will recollect
that the hon. member for Halifax, in the discussion of this question last night, while
endeavoring to avoid the dilemma in which he
was placed by the resolution which he moved
in 1862, stated that they did not intend to do
anything—that the resolution was a delusion—
that they looked forward to a Union after the
Railway was completed. Mr. Howe always
declared that a railway was an essential precedent of Union, but be also as invariably
contended that the railway was only the means
towards that great end. " Why do I
want a railway? Perhaps for the pecuniary
and commercial advantages that it may bring
to us, but the great object I have in view is a
Union of the Colonies." That was the sum and
substance of his arguments I ask then when
we attain the great end he had in view
and at the same time, and by means
of the Union obtain the Railway which
he vainly laboured so hard to secure, why
does he now factiously oppose the measure which brings about the very result he
wished to obtain. Mr Howe says on the same
occasion :—
" Of one thing I am proud to-day : of the unanimity
and evident attachment to the home of our fathers
which have characterized this meeting. In the generous offer of the government and
people of England,
we have felt John Bull's heart, beating against our
own. * * Until the time arrives when North America shall rise into a nation nothing can be more
honorable than our connection with the parent
state. * * I do not disguise from you that I look
hopefully forward to the period when these splendid Provinces, with the population,
the resour
ces and intelligence of a nation, will assume
anational character. Until that day comes we are
safe beneath the shield of England, and when it
comes we shall stand between the two great nations
whose blood we share, to moderate their counsels
and preserve them in the bonds of peace."
Shortly afterwards Mr. Howe visited New Brunswick, and in a speech delivered there, thus
reported
by the hon. member for Halifax in the book I have
referred to :—
" I thought it was now full time that we had higher
objects in view than a mere transit traffic, and I
therefore urged the general views and aspects of
these Provinces, for the purpose of preparing the
public mind in England to promote their elevation to
a far higher status in the scale of nations." And Mr.
Annand thus comments on the above and previous
parts of the same speech.
" Having very adroitly detached some of the prominent public men of New Brunswick,
and brought out
in bold relief the proportions of that great field of
honorable emulation and exertion which they would
tread, when Union of the Provinces by iron roads
had been followed by the political organization which
would be the immediate result, he said:—
" If the sphere were wide enough here, what would
you do with such men? You would send Judge
Wilmot to administer justice. Where? To a small
Province? No: but to an American Empire. You
would place Mr. Chandler on the bench of the United
Provinces; you would hold out to the young men of
your country a sphere and a field for their exertions
and their ambition which none of them have open to
them now. How? By violence? By rebellion?
By bloodshed? No. You would seek to live under
the old flag. You would seek not separation from
the mother country—that would be madness, folly,
bad faith; but with the consent of the Sovereign, and
the acquiesence of the Imperial authorities, by the
united action and good sense of all the Provinces.
You would seek by union to elevate them all to a higher status than any of them separately
can ever enjoy.
I believe that Railways will be of great use to these
Provinces, but I believe also that it is necessary, nay
almost indispensable, to produce a social and political organization of the people,
to raise these Provinces
to a higher position than they can ever singly attain "
And in his report to his own government, in 1851,
he says :—
" Among all ranks and classes the railroad seemed
to be regarded as indispensable agencies by which
North Americans would be drawn into a common
brotherhood, inspired with higher hopes, and ultimately elevated by some form of political
association,
to that position, which, when these great works have
prepared the way of union, one half of this continent
may fairly claim in the estimation of the world."
In his speech on the organization of the empire, he
said :—
"If, then, the British and Colonial statesmen do
not incorporate this people into the British Empire,
or make a nation of them, they will, long before their
numbers have swelled so much, make a nation of
themselves."
What did Mr. Howe mean by all that? Higher status in the scale of nations, Union?
Higher position when North America shall rise into
a nation, &c? Did he mean that little Nova
Scotia would rise into a great nation?—He
was speaking then of British America—asking
them to build the road and obtain that standing in the world which the advocates of
union
are now endeavoring to bring about. He was
advocating then exactly what we are advocating now. I would like, before passing from
this subject, to read another extract to the hon.
member for Yarmouth who, pointing to the
map before him, said that Canada was a dreary
waste—that we could not expect any commercial or manufacturing advantages from connection
with her—that she, from her natural
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
273
position, was worthless to us as an ally, either
commercially or politically. The hon member
is in unison with Mr. Howe on this question
now, but let us see what. the hon. member's
friend has said on former times about Canada,
when it was not his interest to traduce that
country :—
" But, sir, daring as may appear the scope of this
conception, high as the destiny may seem which it
discloses for our children, and boundless as are the
fields of honorable labor which it presents another,
grander in proportions, opens beyond; one which
the imagination of a poet could not exaggerate, but
which the statesman may grasp and realize, even in
our own day. Sir. to mind these disjointed Provinces together by iron roads; to give
them the homogeneous character fixedness of purpose, and elevation
of sentiment, which they so much require, is our first
duty. But, after all, they occupy but a limited portion of that boundless heritage
which God and nature have given to us and to our children. Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick are but the frontage of a
territory which includes four millions of square
miles, stretching away behind and beyond them, to
the frozen regions on the one side and the Pacific on
the other. Of this great section of the globe, all the
Northern Provinces, including Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, occupy but four
hundred
and eighty-six thousand square miles. The Hudson's
Bay territory includes two hundred and fifty thousand miles. Throwing aside the more
bleak and inhospitable regions, we have a magnificent country
between Canada and the Pacific, out of which five
or six no le Provinces may be formed, larger than
any we have, and presenting to the hand of industry,
and to the eye of speculation, every variety of soil,
climate, and resources. With such a territory as this
to overrun, organize and improve, think you that we
shall stop even at the western bounds of Canada? or
even at the shores of the Pacific? Vancouver's, Island, with its vast coal measures,
lies beyond The
beautiful islands of the Pacific and the growing commerce of the ocean, are beyond.
Populous China
and the rich East, are beyond; and the sails of our
children's children will reflect as familiarly the sunbeams of the South, as they
now brave the angry
tempests of the North The maritime Provinces
which I now address, are but the Atlantic frontage
of this boundless and prolific region; the wharves
upon which its business will be transacted, and beside which its rich argories are
to lie. Nova Scotia
is one of these Will you, then, put your hands unitedly, with order, intelligence,
and energy to this
great work? Refuse, and you are recreants to every
principle which lies at the base of your country's
prosperity and advancement: refuse, and the Deity's
handwriting upon land and sea, is to you unintelligent language; refuse, and Nova
Scotia, instead of
occupying the foreground as she now does should
have been thrown back, at least behind the Rocky
Mountains. God has planted your country in the
front of this boundless region; see that you comprehend its destiny and resources—see
that you discharge, with energy and elevation of soul, the duties
which devolve upon you in virtue of your position."
I scarcely require to make an apology for
reading to this house an extract so eloquent.
1 may say that eloquent as have been the
speeches of the advocates of this scheme, none
of them can exceed this, or more fully recognize the importance and benefits of Union.
I
would be quite content to put these words
of the eminent man from whom I quoted
against the remarks that the hon. member for
Yarmouth thought proper to make. And I
would ask him to give the same weight to these
words of Mr. Howe, as he is ready to give the
opinions of the same gentleman to-day. There
is no man who is acquainted with the resources
of Canada—with the industry and energy of her
people—with the great progress that has been
made in all the elements of prosperity, but
must recognize the want of truth in the statements of the hon. member, and the want
of
magninimity he displayed in disparaging a
colony which has increased more rapidly in recent years than any other part of the
world.
There is no country in North America that, in
the last fifty years, has advanced so rapidly
and so steadily in all the sources of material
wealth and greatness as the Province of Canada.
On another occasion, in a great speech which
the same gentleman delivered in this House
on the Organization of the Empire he says :—
" Sir, the first question which we men of the North
must put to ourselves, is have we a territory broad
enough of which to make a nation? At the risk of
travelling over some of the ground trodden yesterday
by the learned member for Annapolis, I think it can
be shown that we have. Beneath, around, and behind us, stretching away from the Atlantic
to the
Pacific are four millions square miles of territory.
All Europe with its family of nations, contains but
three million seven hundred and eighty thousand. or
two hundred and ninety-two thousand miles less.
The United States include three million three hundred and thirty thousand five hundred
and seventy-
two square miles, or seven hundred and sixty-nine
thousand one hundred and twenty-eight less than
British America. Sir, I often smile when I hear some
vain-glorious Republican exclaiming :—
" No pent-up Utica contracts our power,
The whole unbounded continent ours !"
forgetting that the largest portion does not belong
to him at all. but to us, the men of the North, whose
descendants will control its destinies forever. Sir, the
whole globe contains but thirty-seven million square
miles. We, North Americans, living under the British flag. have one ninth of the whole,
and this ought
to give us " ample room and verge enough" for the
accommodation and support of a countless population."
These were the sentiments that Mr. Howe
impressed upon the people of this country
What then did they lead to? When the Provincial Secretary moved the resolution, two
years ago, for the Union of the Maritime Colonies, I stated in a very short speech,
that from
my earliest recollection of the political history
of this country I had been impressed with the
conviction that the leading men on both sides
had always advocated the Union of the British
North American Colonies, and that a desire
for such Union largely pervaded the public
mind of this country. I regretted, on that occasion, that instead of a Union of the
Maritime
Provinces, we could not aspire to a Union of
all the Colonies in British North America.
Sir, I did not stand alone in entertaining that
opinion, and I venture to assert that it was
the opinion of the large majority of the people
of this country, until their fears and prejudices
were aroused by demagogues who had other
ends to serve, and not a leading man but has
been found in the front pressing forward this
great question. But Mr. Howe, in a letter
which he published the other day, says we are
powerless to defend ourselves. Let us see
what he thought on that subject a few years
ago; after eloquently referring to the necessity
for the future consolidation of these colonies.
he said :—
" Taking our population at two millions and a half,
(it is now nearer four millions.) every fifth person
should be able to draw a trigger, giving 500,000 men
capable of bearing arms. Such a force would be
powerless as an invading army, but in defence of
these Provinces invincible by any force that could be
sent from abroad."
274
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
"How often have we heard that our republican
neighbors were going to overrun the Provinces.
They have attempted it once or twice, but have always
been beaten out, and I do not hesitate to say that the
British American over whom the old flag flies, are
able to defend every inch of their territory, even
though Her Majesty's troops were withdrawn."
So much then for Mr. Howe, and now let us
enquire what are we to obtain from a Union of
the Colonies. It is hardly worth while detaining
the house on this branch of the subject, for it has
been so very amply discussed; but let me say
that this union will give us commercial great
ness, political status, social distinction, and mili
tary power I will not say we are going all at
once to become a great Empire, to be able to compete with the great nation close to
us—but let us
unite these colonies, consolidate their strength and
resources, and we start fair for all the greatness
which the Anglo-Saxon race is sure to attain
when it has the means and the opportunity. We
start with a larger population than the United
States had when their national existence began,
with a country far in advance of those States at
the time of their separation, in all the elements of
national prosperity and greatness. We will have
direct railway communication with the whole
country behind us, as soon as the political union
is consummated. The hon member for Yarmouth says that we cannot have extensive commercial
relations with Canada, and that union
will give no impulse to our commercial enterprise, and he scouted the idea that we
can sustain manufacturing establishments. Why should
we not have manufactures ? He says we have
not the population. True, I reply, and whilst we
remain isolated as at present—whilst we have had
only a population of 330,000 people, he is quite
right to say we cannot rise above our present condition. No one knows better than
he that a large
manufactory in Halifax or Yarmouth of any particular article could supply the Province.
We
can afford no inducements to men of large capital to expend their money in developing
our resources. Give us, however, the population of
four millions that union will give, strike down
the hostile tariffs that now stand like a Chinese
walt between the Provinces. and you have the
market for manufactures which is now wanting
to stimulate enterprise. The hon. member says
we have not the means or resources, Then again
I say the hon member's knowledge of this country should have prevented him making
this assertion. If there is a country in the world of equal
dimensions, that by virtue of its geographical po
sition and natural resources, has greater facilities
for commerce and manufactures, 1 have yet to
learn where it is ? You have immense tracts of
the finest quality of coal at the pit's mouth, you
have mines of iron, and alongside them again you
have the lime required to convert iron to useful
purposes. Only give facilities for making these
resources productive, and what portion of the
Union will develope itself more rapidly than Nova Scotia ? This Province has rapidly
developed her resources, notwithstanding the disadvantageous position in which she is placed
; her
mines of coal and iron have made progress, and
her commercial progress bears witness to the
energy of the people, but give us the demand
that the wants of four millions of people will create, and she will increase to a
remarkable degree
in all the elements of prosperity. What has made
Massachusetts the great manufacturing state it is?
That the cotton of New Orleans comes to
to be converted into cloth—that the iron of Pennsylvania comes to be converted into
cutlery in
the manufacturies of Boston. Why can Massachusetts supply manufactures to the whole
Union?
Because the hostile tariffs meet her productions
at every state boundary. Why should not Halifax be the Boston of British North America?—
Why should not the cotton of New Orleans be
manufactured in this city, and supplied to every
town in the Confederacy? Why should not tobacco be made, and sugar refined here as
well as
in Boston? No reason in the world is there why
it should not be so, except that we have no market, no population, fenced in as we
are by the
hostile tariffs of every surrounding country Supposing each of the United States had
remained
isolated and separate communities, that each
state had preserved its own revenue and trade
loses, in what position would they be in now?—
Weak, insignificant communities, instead of component parts of one of the strongest
and proudest
nations of the world. I ask then, is it not our
duty to adopt this measure. If our trade shall be
enlarged and wealth will be increased, then it is
an answer to all the story we have heard about
taxation. The people have been told time and
again until they began to believe it is so—that
they are going to be taxed to pay the debt of Canada. There is no foundation for such
a belief,
but suppose I assume for the sake of argument
that the statement is partially true, and that instead of paying 10 we shall pay 15
or 17 percent;
but if our commerce prosper as largely as I have
predicted, then I ask the hon. member for Yarmouth whether the mere trifle of increased
duty
should stand in the way, when compared with the
progress that this country will make in all the
elements of productive industry. It is not many
years since the construction of railways was commenced in this country, and I remember
how
many persons said they were to be our
ruin. Mr. Howe was going to swamp us.—
Our taxation was to be doubled. And
a great many persons thought that if our
duties were largely raised we would be ruined
beyond redemption. I dare say the hon. mem
ber for Yarmouth did a great deal to create the
idea throughout the country, for he was then as
now opposed to every progressive measure.—
We built the Railways and the croakers have
turned out false property. Our duties have been
doubled, and I will undertake to say that there
is not a man in the House who will say that we
are not now better able to pay our increased
duties than we were to pay the lesser duty ten
years ago This is an illustration of what may
be the result of the Union with the British North
American Colonies It gives us room and
expansion—it gives us what population will
always afford ; and everything that promotes the
wealth of a country, and while we have these no
fear of taxation ruining us or cramping our
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
275
energies. I do not intend to occupy the House
in the discussion of other branches of the subject.
With Union, our social and political statue will
be enlarged, and our means of defence against
aggression increased and consolidated, it will give
you thousands of men that we cannot otherwise
have, and 1 will tell you how. We are rapidly
increasing in population even now but give us
the facilities for commerce and manufactures that
Union will afford then you will have hundreds
where you have now one added to the number
of the people. And the same thing will occur in
Canada and the other Provinces. What is the
reason that this Province has been for so many
years sparsely settled —it is only where mines
have been worked that you have any large centres
of industry. Immigration seeks a country where
there is plenty of room and work. Give us the
population and the industry that Union will
certainly bring with it, and you will have a
greater ability to contribute towards defence, both
in money and men.
When I listened to the hon. member for Yarmouth, I thought of the last occasion when
he
pointed to the same map which now hangs before me. He is the last mm in the world
of
whom I would say a single disrespectful word
but from his anxiety to see anything beyond
Yatmouth, he is at times, I might say at all
times one of the most inconsistent man that ever
sat in this House. No doubt every one is disposed to give the hon. member credit for
his
commercial enterprise for the zeal with which
he discharges his duties, but the people of this
country must know that on almost all the great
questions which tend to promote the wealth and
prosperity, he has always been a drag on the
wheel. Therefore I say that on a question like
this gentlemen will not be disposed to accept his
assertions or opinions with the confidence that
they would otherwise be disposed to extend to
them. When we were discussing the intercolonial Railway, three years ago we saw the
same
map before us. On that occasion the hon. member in his attempt to defeat the lntercolonial
proposition resolved to the argument that the road
we ought to build was the one to Pictou. But
when the hon. member had an opportunity of
being consistent with himself building that road
to Pictou what did he? His party came into
power, and in fulfilment of the pledge which
they had given when the hon. member was one
of their supporters, proposed to construct the
railway to Pictou, but this consistent gentleman
opposed the measure to which he was solemnly
pledged left his party because they would
not violate their pledges as readily as himself. Yet the hon. member told us to-day
that he invariably acts upon principle. He left
his party on that very question, although standing
in the presence of the House bet re that very
ma.» he promised to support us in carrying it—
He says he did not want office, I daresay he did
not for himself but he has put it into my power
to declare that if he did not wish to enter the Government himself be left the party
that he sustained on the verv Pictou Railway question three
years ago because some of his friends did not get
office. (Mr. Killam—No.) I say yes; the hon.
member took occasion at a recent date to state
that he left because I was appointed Railway
Commissioner. He wished that another gentleman, a personal follower of his own, should
be
appointed. I shall not trouble the House with
any lengthy observations on the financial branch
of this subject, but there are one or two points in
the speech of the hon member for East Halifax,
that I may briefly notice. He stated that the
revenue derived from local sources, under Confederation, would be $155,000. This sum
added
to the subsidy of 80 cents a head, amounting to
$264,800, gives a total of $419,800, to be appropriated for local purposes. Here I
am quite content to take the figures of the hon member, but he
went further.
Now to make a set off to this revenue for local
purposes, the hon member for Halifax resorts to
the most unfair method of assuming that future
grants for local purposes will, for the future, be as
large as they are this year. That hon member
knows well, Sir, that never in the history of this
country have the grants for Education, Roads
and Bridges, Navigation securities, and special
grants for such purposes as the St Peter Canal,
and opening and enlarging many of the Harbors
on our coasts been so large and munificent as
during the last three years. And he also knows,
Sir, that it has never been imagined by any one
in this House that these large grants could be
continued. Where Sir, are we to obtain the
means to meet the obligations the country has
assumed except by discontinuing these exceptional grants as the necessity arises.
Whence is to
come the interest on the Pictou Railway which
already forms a considerable sum to the debt of our
account? Where are we to find the subvention
we are to pay to the Annapolis and Intercolonial
Riilways? Why, Sir the hon member well
knows that if Union did not take place, and all
these liabilities fall upon our own shoulder, that
notwithstanding the prosperity of the country,
we should be obliged not only to reduce all these
special and exceptional grants, but be obliged to
resort to additional taxation to sustain the credit
of the country, and yet the hon gentleman ventures to place before the country the
figures quoted in his speech as a fair estimate of our local
outlay after the Union is consummated
Now, Sir, 1 shall submit my estimate to the
House and challenge a comparison of my figures
with those of the hon member. The liabilities I
put as follows:—
| Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$5,000 |
| Criminal prosecutions . . . . . . . . . . |
1,600 |
| Coroner's Inquest . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
1,400 |
| Crown lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
14,000 |
| Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
17,000 |
| Distressed sea-men . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
200 |
| Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
120,000 |
| Relief Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
2,000 |
| Poor Asylum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
8,000 |
| Relief paupers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
5,000 |
| Roads and bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
140,000 |
| Legislative expenses . . . . . . . . . . |
20,000 |
| Salaries, &c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
8,000 |
| Navigation securities . . . . . . . . . . . |
20,000 |
| Insane Asylum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
20,000 |
276
[DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
| Public printing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
3,000 |
| Board of Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
25,000 |
| Packets and Ferries . . . . . . . . . . . . |
5,000 |
| In all. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$415,200 |
or $4,640 dollars less than the amount now
available for local purposes. The House will see
that I have given the full amount of the Educational grant, and I have also been induced
to
leave all the principal services at the full figure our
altered circumstances will require The road
grant I have somewhat reduced, as it is evident
to all that as soon as our new obligations begin
to weigh on the Treasury, that and other services
must be curtailed to meet their demands. The
Hon. member for Halifax has also unfairly increased the amount of local liabilities
by including in many of the services named by him, sums
which under Confederation will be borne by the
general Revenues. Now Sir, this estimate is
based on the supposition that the sources of our
local Revenue will not in the future yield a larger
amount than at present, but such a proposition
seriously made would be laughed at. Why, Sir,
what do we see on the papers on this table ? —
This, Sir, that the casual Revenue and receipts
from Crown Lands above, two items of our
local Revenue have increased three fold within
the last four years, while the receipts from Gold
Mines, also form a new and increasing source of
Revenue Now, Sir, without being subject to the
charge of being too sanguine, I may fairly
assume that all those sources of Revenue shall be
as prosperous for the next five years as they have
been in the past. But to keep within the safest
bounds, suppose they only double within that
time, and the Hon member would have an additional $l55,000 for local purposes, so
that instead of being obliged to resort to direct taxation,
he might by the exercise of the economy and
financial skill for which he is so famous, not only
meet all his wants in a liberal manner but
actually leave a balance in the chest.
The hon member for Yarmouth tells us that we
cannot expect any commercial advantages from
connection with Canada that there was not nor
could there be any communication between us
I am surprised to hear the hon member make
such a statement. Is the trade of a country
which reaches the enormous sum of one hundred
millions a year worth nothing? Does he not
know that our intercourse with that country is
already very considerable and is rapidly increasing Her politicians and merchants
are opening
up new outlets for trade, and endeavoring in
every way possible to develope the resources of
the country to the utmost limit, and it only requires time to make these efforts successful.
Indeed, the merchants of that country manifest a
spirit of enterprise and energy which our own
would do well to observe.
Many hon members, the hon member for East
Halifax among the number, have stated that this
question is not understood in England—that Mr
Cardwell has been hastily drawn into the support
of a measure that his own judgment would not
approve of. I can only say that I have lately
had an opportunity of seeing some of the loyal
dependencies of Great Britain—of seeing a group
of colonies having as enterprising and intelligent
class of men as are to be seen in any part of the
globe. Under the most adverse circumstances
they have pressed forward the industrial resources
of their respective countries, small as they are,
until now they feel encouraged in looking to the
future. These men understand as thoroughly as
any men that I have ever met with, the condition
of the Empire and the colonial dependencies; and
I was never more gratified than to find that they
one and all, manifested a strong desire to see this
union perfected. They are British in all their
feelings and aspirations, and look upon the consummation of this union as another
step towards
the strengthening and consolidation of British
power in the world. Men more capable of forming a correct judgment on the subject
I did not
meet anywhere. That is an evidence of the opinions formed respecting the proposed
union by
men not biased by prejudice; in fact, wherever
you find Englishmen who understand the condition and relations of these colonies they
are all in
favor of this scheme. This is a reply, to a large
extent, to the argument of the hon member for
East Halifax.
It has been said outside of this House that the
result of this scheme will be the political extinction of its promoters. A good authority
with
some has told us that the men who carry this
scheme must make up their minds to go off the
arena of public life, and their places will be filled
by those who are opposing this measure I am
quite content. Starting young in politics I am
naturally desirous of seeing the country prosper
for I feel I must more or less participate in that
prosperity; but all I can say personally is this—if
the union be carried I shall be quite satisfied
whoever may reap the fruits. It makes little
difference after all who shall receive the political
advantages whilst the interests of the country are
advanced, as they will be by the successful consummation of the measure of Union.
But this
also let me say the opponents of Union may
succeed in deriving a little temporary popularity
by their course, but the people sooner or later,
when they see the benefits that the scheme
confers upon them will acknowledge their mistake
and give their confidence and esteem, where it is
properly due. I am quite content to wait the
coming of that time when the very men who may
now reject Union will be the same who will
accept it and recognize the claims of its friends
and promoters to their consideration. (Cheers)
SPEECH OF MR. MCLELAN.
Mr. McLELAN said :—If I consulted my own
feelings, I should perhaps remain silent on
this occasion, for I know not how to address
the house—what words to utter appropriate to
this momentous question. Notwithstanding
all that has been said by the gentleman who
has just sat down, I feel that it is not I who
should speak at this time, nor is it the men
who sit around me; it is the people of Nova
Scotia, the men who own and cultivate her
soil, who work her mines. who build her ships,
or whatever may be their avocations, who
ave made this country their home, and linked
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
277
their destines with her's, who should first
speak and instruct their representatives on
this great question. But this right—their right
—as I shall hereafter attempt to show, having
been denied them, it becomes imperative on
us to speak in their behalf; and when I reflect
upon this, and consider that perhaps I am participating in the last discussion of
the last Parliament of Nova Scotia, I feel almost borne
down by the responsibilities of the position—
by the solemnities of the hour. The Prov. Sec.
says we shrink from the discussion of this
question. No sir, we do not. We never have
been backward on any public occasion
to discuss it, and all we ask now
is that it may be carried down to
every village and town in Nova Scotia,
and upon full and fair discussion the decision of the people accepted. The member
for Inverness says all the lawyers, all the leading statesmen—all the professed politicians
favour the scheme and therefore the strong inference is that it is right. I beg to
differ with
him in his conclusion. When the professional
politicians of a country—the men who make a
living hy politics—agree upon any measure I
cannot regard it as evidence that it will be
beneficial to their country. The simple fact that
it is to improve the passion of those of them who
may be successful may make them unanimous
in supporting it, and comparing the list of
salaries in Canada with those in Nova Scotia
we find so great a difference that it is not impossible, but it has influence here.
Let me
mention a few of the salaries found on that
list.
|
Canada. |
Nova Scotia. |
| Atty General. East and West. |
$10,000 |
$2,000 |
| Solicitor General ditto . . |
6,000 |
800 |
| Contingencies ditto . . |
3,800 |
000 |
| Provincial secretary . . . . . . . . . . |
5,000 |
2,800 |
| Clerks and contingencies . . . . . . |
30,000 |
4,089 |
| Surveyor General . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
5,000 |
2,000 |
| Clerks and contingencies . . . . . |
94,049 |
3,150 |
| Receiver General . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
5,000 |
2,400 |
| Financial Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . |
5,000 |
2,400 |
| Clerks and contingencies . . . . . . |
43,649 |
1,878 |
From this comparison we might, if so disposed, draw the inference that the unanimity
of our professional politicians arises from the
fact that Confederation will give them very
much larger salaries. But, much as we desire
to discuss this question, we must protest
against treating it in the tone and style of the
past few days. The most dissolute and abandoned character, when brought into the presence
of his death-warrant, assumes a more
reformed and sometimes evinces a Christian-
like spirit. The house has now before it its
death-warrant, and while we may not hope to
see it die like a Christian, it should at least
imitate the Indian savage, who sings his death
song with calmness and dignity, in the belief
that he is about to enter the happy hunting-
grounds. and in like manner did I expect to
see the advocates of this proposition sing the
death-song, inasmuch as it will give them the
entrance to Canada, the " happy hunting-
ground" for office-seekers. The government
charged as who oppose this scheme with merely desiring delay, that on a change of
government we may be in a position to carry the
measure ourselves and divide the spoils. I do
not accept the charge. l fling it back to those
who make it, and tell them they are not the
men to impugn our motives. They who raised
this question—who gave it existence—who
have arranged all the offices: the Judgships,
the Governorships, and others, and who,
when this measure is forced through as
they are doing, shall fill those high positions, are the men of all others open to
a
charge of motives, and they should have
more modesty than raise it. Sir, I envy no
man his office or his honors, and God forbid
that I should ever enjoy them at the sacrifice
of my countrymen's rights. Others may take
them, but however great their reward may be
personally, it will not make their country's
wounds the less sore. It is not true, as was
believed in the dark days of superstition, that
"a salve to the sword will cure the wound it
has given." I oppose this proposition because
I believe it wrong in itself ; because, territorially situated as we are, it will
tend to destroy
the harmony and good feeling existing among
these Provinces by bringing into conflict their
diversified interests; that it will retard the
prosperity of this province, by imposing upon
us heavy financial burthens ; that it will
weaken our connection with the Mother Country and our means of defence, by rendering
the people less attached to their form of government, and ultimately carry us into
the arms
of the Great Republic. Having taxed the patience of the House on a former occasion
with
my objections to the Quebec scheme, I need
not now repeat them, although they are exactly applicable as against this resolution.
For although not mentioned in it, the hon. introducer of the resolution has declared
his entire
approval of it, and will take care to appoint
on the delegation a majority holding the same
opinions as himself. Beside this we have before us nothing from any of the other Provinces
to lead us to suppose that they have abandoned the Quebec arrangement. Indeed I do
not
see how the Canadian ministry can, when
they only carried the measure through their
house on a distinct pledge, that there should
be no departure from the terms agreed upon
at Quebec. I shall trouble the house with but
one extract to this point, and from the speech
of Hon. Atty. Gen. Carder, who said:—
" I have already declared, in my own name, and
on behalf of the government, that the delegates who
go to England will accept from the Imperial government no act but one based on the
resolutions adopted by this house, and they will not bring back any
other. (Hear, hear.) I have pledged my word of
honor, and that of the government, to that effect."
After such a pledge how can the Canadian
delegates depart from the Quebec scheme?
And presuming that the honorable members
for Richmond and Inverness, Messrs. Miller
and McDonnell, are appointed on the delegation they will be overruled by the Canadians
and their co-delegates from Nova Scotia. I
had proposed to direct the attention of the
house to the obstacles to a Union, other than
exists, in the configuration of the territory
which it is proposed to confederate; but the
hon. member for Yarmouth has so well illustrated this that I need not detain the house,
I am sure those who listened to the hon. gentleman this afternoon must have felt the
utter
impossibility of uniting and so interweaving
the several interests of that territory as to
make them harmonize and blend as one. Our
Province is almost an island,—detached
278
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
from New Brunswick by the bay of Fundy,—
while New Brunswick is separated from Canada by the State of Maine, and a trackless
forest of great extent. Mr. Fleming, in the
report of his survey for an intercolonial railway made in 1824, gives us some insight
into
the nature of this country. He says :—
" A parallelogram, bounded on the South-East by
a line drawn from Fredericton to Chatham, on the
North-East by a line drawn from Chatham to Metis,
ou the South-West by a line drawn from Fredericton
to River du Loup, and on the North-West by the
settlements along the River St. Lawrence; about 90
miles in width, by 200 miles in length and embracing
nearly 18,000 square miles, is both unsettled and
roadless."
Here is a territory the size of the entire Province of Nova Scotia, so long as it
remains unsettled must render a union between New
Brunswick and Canada an impossibility.
The Fin Secy. in addressing the house read
extracts from speeches of Hon. Mr. Howe,
advocating the Intercolonial Railway as "a
means to an end." The end contemplated
here, I presume, is the settlement of this territory, and the making, in such settlement,
that connection between the two Provinces as
might render, at some period, a political
Union possible. And until that be first done
I hold it is madness to enforce such a Union.
Nor did I believe that with the boundary line
of the two Provinces wiped out by settlements
can the extraordinarv anticipations of the Delegates be realized from a country shaped
as
are these Provinces. Turn to the map of the
world and you will find every country, occupying a first. class position, compact
in shape,
and just as the country departs from that it
descends in the scale of nations. England has
been styled " the tight little isle of the sea."
There is in her a compact territory, which affords that blending of interest which
leads to
a harmonious co-operation for the good of the
whole. We have been frequently reminded
since this question arose of the Heptarchy in
England, and the great results of her Union.
Union for her was a natural act, and so may
it be said of England and Scotland. The boundary line is wiped out by the dense population,
which flow back and forth, that the influence of the interest of each extends
into and operates upon the other, forming a
strong and enduring union. Ireland has not
this territorial connection. The influence of
her interests is bounded by the sea-shore, and
naturally seeks a centre within her own territory. There is not the same interweaving
of
interests, and consequently the bond of union
ia acknowledged to be weaker than between
England and Scotland. England grew in
greatness and power by every union which
commanded territory and people and interests,
having for each a natural affinity, but when
she went beyond that she gained only elements
Of weakness, She crossed the Channel into
France, and attempted to draw that people
and country to her, but the more territory she
acquired the weaker she became, and eventually yielded to the inflexible law of nature
that
the drawings of all people are to their natural
centre of interest. Look at France upon the
map No straggling arms or long jutting head
lands, but all compact, and forming a country
which claims and holds a first position among
Empires. Go over the map of Europe, and
just as you find countries departing from that
compact shape you find them descending in
the scale of nations. But I may be referred to
England's colonies scattered all over the globe
and having no territorial connection with England, and be asked how she has held them
without their being a source of weakness?—
Simply by permitting them to manage all
matters of internal policy as suited
themselves. Attempting no action affecting
the internal interest of a colony further than
was compensated for by a protection of her
external interests. By this wise and liberal policy she has seen her colonies grow
and prosper in a remarkable degree. She departed
from this policy when she proposed to tax the
thirteen New England States, but the people
regarded it as a violation of their chartered
rights, and they severed the connection with
the parent state. England saw the mistake
Lord North had committed, and compelled him to repeal the act imposing a tax on
colonists, and from that time to the present
the policy pursued by England towards her
colonies has been growing more enlightened
and liberal.
But we have been told in this discussion.
that England takes very strong ground on this
question, and urges it for our acceptance, and
so far have members of Government gone as
to bring to their aid the name of Her Majesty
the Queen. I have for some months seen that
name used in the public newspapers in connection with this scheme, and felt it difficult
to restrain my indignation at these who resorted to such unjust means to influence
public
opinion, but when the hon. Prov. Seccretary
took the same course in introducing his resolution, I listened to him with absolute
disgust. Who taught those men to take
such liberties with the name of our beloved Sovereign? It was Governor Eyre, of
Jamaica, and his officials who headed proclamations " The Queen's Wish," and who in
their
administration first exasperated the people and
then butchered them. Let our officials beware
how far they follow that unfortunate example.
But, says the Prov. Secretary, it is mentioned in the speech at the opening of Parliament.
Suppose it is, we all know that except in cases
where ministers do not feel that it would interfere with their policy, the Sovereign
does
not alter a line or syllable of the opening
speech. If there is one thing more than
another for which we love and honor Queen
Victoria, it is for her home virtues, and yet
the ministry claim the right to regulate even
her household—to say what maids of honour
shall surround her person. Again we are told
that we should accept this scheme from respect to the wishes of the British Government.
Sir, I yield to no man in my respect for a government, which is a reflex of the opinions
and
sentiments of so liberty-loving a people as
those of the British Isles, and when I study
the policy established by that reflex of British ideas, I both admire and respect
it. Commencing with the repeal of that law under
which Lord North taxed the New England
Colonies, and from which they rebelled, I
trace down a policy growing year by
year more liberal, progressing with the
spirit of the age, and conferring upon
us colonists all the privileges and freedom
which the most ardent lover of self government can desire. And now should Mr. Card
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
279
well, who, in a short administration has had
in Jamaica a butchery and in Australia the
machinery of government brought to a stand,
insist upon our accepting a certain scheme,
no matter how injurious we may consider it
to our interests our respect for the long established policy of England should of
itself make
us hesitate. No man nor no single government changes the policy of Britain in a day.
No policy lives there unless founded upon
public sentiment. And when a Colonial Secretary attempts to enforce a change in the
entire
constitution ofthe country in which we live,
regardless of our wishes, we may well regard
it only as the act of an individual, until we
know that the people who make and unmake
Colonial Secretaries have turned their attention to it and approve of it. I am told
that
public opinion in England does favor this
scheme. It may and still be in harmony with
the policy pursued towards us. Public opinion
in England may be founded upon the information given that the leaders of all parties
had combined in the scheme of Union and the
usual inference would be that the mass of the
people approved. But if the Pro. Secy. will
grant us a general election; and if a majority, overwhelming as I believe it would
be, is found against this Union, and
public opinion thereafter insist upon our
adopting it then shall I believe there is a change
of policy by the people of England, and then,
but not until that is thus shown, shall I think
it necessary to consider what sacrifices of our
interests we should make from respect to the
British Government. We are told that there
is not time for this; that events are gathering
about us that preclude the possibility of a dissolution; that we are threatened with
invasion
and that unless we yield to the wishes of the
British Government, our country will not be
protected. The men who tell us this slander
Old England and are guilty of treason. What
danger threatens us now? Whence comes
the threatened invasion? Not from any act
we or any of our people have committed, nor
from anything connected with our internal or
external interests, but from that which is akin
to the act about to be perpetrated here: a
forced union. Ah, sir, forced marriages seldom prove fortunate, and the forced union
of
Ireland with England is bearing fruit. We
had a few years ago O'Connoll's great agitation for a repeal of that union, but it
was restrained in its action by the master mind of the
great Dan and by the influences of the Crown,
but housands of Irishmen have gone out from
under the British flag, feeling in their heart
that their country has been wronged, and have
found under other flags the influences that have
strengthened and perpetuated that sense of
wrong, and thus they and their offspring
have been but too easily led by designing
knaves into this Fenian movement, which
now threatens our peace. And now are we
to be told, when we have placed the entire resources of our country for defence—when
every militia man is falling into line, and
Nova Scotia one vast drill shed, that England
will not help us—meet the danger she has
brought upon us—unless we agree to this
scheme of Confederation. Then, sir, would she
stand disgraced before the civilized world.
If the British Parliament sustain a government that makes this the condition upon
which they will now aid us, the whole world
will ring with the Frenchman's cry, " Perfidious Albion," and old Cromwell will come
back to empty another Parliament House.
No, every war ship that comes steaming into
our harbour contradicts this assertion, and
every intelligence we receive from England
assures us that the peeple sustain the government in making our protection their honor.
I have under my hand a letter from a manufacturer in Manchester, who holds the position
of Major in the volunteers. in whose ranks
some of the best blood of England has enlisted, and in this letter there are the strongest
assurances of an interest in our position and a
desire to aid us in repelling the danger.
Speaking of Fenianism I am reminded that
the hon member for Richmond announced, on
the authority of a New York paper, that one
of the planks of the Fenian platform is to oppose the confederation of these Provinces.
The Prov. Sec'y also attempts to draw from
this an argument in favor of his resolution.
Now the object of Fenianism is the liberation
of Ireland. The first necessity in this attempt
is to secure a territory that will serve as a base
for operations. This territory must also be
British, because the seizing of any other
would involve a double conflict, hence it is of
the first importance to Fenianism that there
shall be a British Province within easy reach
of them. Suppose that to-morrow we should
be annexed to the United States, that organization would cease to exist. Othello's
occupation would be gone. There would be no
suitable and assailable British territory left
for them to secure as a base of Operations, and
I do not doubt that the leaders of that movement, seeing plainly that annexation to
Canada
will soon be followed by annexation of the
whole to the American States, and feeling the
strong necessity of having us remain British
provinces, do not favour Confederation. I do
no mean to say that those who here favor it
do so as the means to the end : annexation to
the United States, but I firmly believe that will
be the result ; and if I did not value British
connection; if I did not value the liberty and
blessings which flow to us from the constitution under which we live, and if I were
so
craven hearted as not to be ready to meet any
danger arising to us because of our connection
with England, I, too, would become a Confederate, and seek to enter that current which
will sweep us all into republicanism.
I acknowledge England expects us to do
more for our own defence than we have hitherto done, but when this is expected of
us, and
when we are ready and willingto meet the expectations, is it, I ask, the time to curtail
our
liberties—to take away our rights? When a
greater strain is put upon the wheel, it is not
the time to cut out part of the spokes; when
the gale increases, it is not the time to weaken
the cable; nor is this the time to weaken our
attachment to the mother country by this Confederation under which we shall at all
times
feel perplexed to know whether we owe allegiance to England or Canada. Like one of
Brigham Young's children adrift in the harem,
we shall feel we have too many mothers. We
have here a good many men claiming descent
from the old Loyalists, men who settled this
country in the belief that the British Government gave up the claim to tax these colonies
280
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
in the repeal of the American duties in 1778.
They came here in the belief that the revenues
they or their descendants raised would be entirely under their own control and disposal;
and now after nearly a century, will England,
without the consent of the people of this Province, hand over our entire revenues,
our entire property, and our constitution, to a Province more difficult of access
to us than the
mother country is, and yet at the same time
claim from us greater contributions to the national defences?
We have been told that it is necessary to place
all our means of defence under one head . If
this means that our Militia systems shall be assimilated, it can as well be done without
as
with confederation: but if it means that being
under one control the men shall be drawn
from one province to another, then I question
very much the propriety of so doing. I believe
the local militia of England or Scotland cannot
be taken beyond certain limits without a special Act of Parliament, and the cases
in which
it would be wise to do so are rare indeed. The
man who may not have a natural inclination
nor a training to the "pomp and circumstance" of military life is comparatively useless
except for home defence. His home and his
household altars he will defend with his life,
but take him beyond these influences and he
needs a long training to be any service in warfare. The means of defence to a country
depends upon the population to territory. These
Provinces are alike assailable through their
whole frontier, and while we have twenty of
a population to the square mile of territory
New Brunswick and Canada have only eight.
Hence the only result of placing the control
of the militia of the provinces under one head
by confederation will be to draw the militia
men from this province to the others: a proposition which we have already seen does
not
find favor with the militia. We have seen already two regiments refuse the oath of
allegiance under the impression that power had
been given to take them to Canada—and I believe that such a feeling is general. The
people will rise en masse to defend this country,
which is dear to them. but will utterly refuse
to be taken away into the wilderness, and
leave their homes unprotected.
Mr. McLELAN continued.— Can any man
cry shame on them for holding this view? No
sir—they are ready to defend Nova Scotia
the utmost. With their faces seaward they
will wait and watch for the foe, and should he
come they will give no man occasion to cry
shame. Every breeze that comes across the
waters to them from old England will bring
courage to their hearts and nerve to their arm;
but take them a thousand miles away into
Canada and their arms will fall unnerved and
powerless at the thought that their own homes
are undefended. Connected with this argument of defence we are told the intercolonial
railway is essential and can only be had by
confederation. I admit its value for defence,
but why cannot it be had without this scheme.
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have always
been ready and anxious to build it, and have
offered to do more than perhaps their just
share, and now we are quite willing to build
it upon the principles which form the basis of
this scheme of confederation and which the
Canadians declare is just and the only one
upon which Union can take place. Now if
this principle of representation by population
and eighty cents per head all round be just it
can easily be applied to the building of this
railroad. The total population of the three
Provinces is 3,090,561, and the length of road,
as given by Mr. Fleming, from Truro to
River du Loup is 422 miles. Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick have a population of 582,904,
which would make their share a fraction less
than 80 miles. Now they are not only willing
to build this but have actually contracted for
109 miles from Truro to Moncton,—29 miles
more than their share by the principle of population,—and all that the Canadians require
to
do is to apply the principle and build down to
meet us at Moncton. I should like much to
see them thus reverse the principle and give
us a foretaste of it, but there is no probability
that they will. They know too well that under confederation our excess of contributions
to the general fund will more than meet the
interest on the entire cost of the road. I shall
not trouble the house at this late hour with
any calculations or arguments to this point
but I believe on a former occasion I
proved to the entire satisfaction of the
Provincial Secretary that Nova Scotia alone
would be better off in a financial view to build
the road herself than enter into this confederation under the Quebec scheme. The hon.
Prov. Sec'y has often characterized the proposition of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
to
build seven-twelfths of the road as monstrous;
but the Hon. George Brown, speaking at Toronto of the building of it under Confederation,
says:—" It may, however, be some comfort for my friends to know that we have a
prospect of getting the road built upon terms
much more reasonable than we had ever
hoped to obtain." Now, while we object to
these terms, we say that if it be so necessary
for defence, we have already contracted for
29 miles more than our share by the principles
which are represented as just under Confederation. A great deal has been said of the
commercial advantages of this road, and of
the great effect it is to have upon this city.
That it is to make the Province one vast beehive, and that the traffic of a continent
is to
centre here. I think the report of the last survey made in 1864 by Mr. Fleming, should
be
sufficient to dispel any such delusion.
I find that nearly all the lines given by him
strike the European and North American railway about 37 miles from St. John, and then
he shews that all the freight traffic passing
down from Canada will seek the nearest outlet, which will be St. John or St. Andrews.—
But supposing we take the central route, that
route strikes 13 miles west of Moncton, making
St John a nearer port than Halifax by 112
miles. He says on page 90:—
" By the projected lines for the Intercolonial Railway, St. Andrews and St. John,
on the Bay of Fundy, are the nearest open winter ports to Canada within British territory,
and they would, therefore, be
the most available outlets for Canadian produce while
other nearer ports remain closed."
St. John must, then, be the outlet for freight,
but he says suppose you build that road, then
it is probable that it will be of most advantage
to Canada when it is doing the least. He says
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
281
that the distance from Toronto to New York
is 540 miles, while the distance to St. John by
Riviere du Loup is 913, and he argues that if
Canada is allowed to send produce through
the American territory it will seek New York,
but he looks at the possibilities of America
prohibiting such a traffic, and he says, ' if you
build the Intercolonial Railway the United
States Government will see that there is a
possibility of the traffic being diverted, and
they will grant permission to send produce to
New York direct. He says:
"As the probable through freight traffic depends
on so many contingencies, it is impossible to form
any proper estimate of its value; but of this we may
rest satisfied, if the construction of the Intercolonial
Railway, by opening out an independent outlet to
the ocean, prove instrumental in keeping down the
barriers to Canadian trade which our neighbours
have the power to erect, it might in this respect
alone be considered of the highest commercial advantage to Canada.. lt is scarcely
likely that the people
of the United States would permanently allow themselves to place restrictions on Canadian
traffic, when
they discovered that by so doing they were simply
driving away trade from themselves; and in this
view the contemplated railway may fairly be considered, especially by the people of
that part of Canada west of Montreal, of the greatest value to them
when least employed in the transportation of produce
to the seaboard."
The European and North American line now
under contract, is 25 miles shorter than it will
be by the Intercolonial line. He says:
"Thus it is evident that the passenger traffic of
the lntercolonial way, on any of these lines being
constructed, be tapped near its roots. and much of it
drawn away. Under these circumstances, it is too
apparent that the Intercolonial Railway may find in
the United States a route formidable rival for Canadian passenger traffic, to and
from Europe, by way of
Halifax. Fortunately, with a view to counteract
this difficulty, a line by the Bay Chaleurs would offer
special advantages, which may here be noticed."
He then goes into an elaborate argument
to prove the propriety of making Shippigan
the place of landing for all steamers passing between America and England, thereby
taking away all ground of argument concerning the commercial advantages of the inercolonial
road. lt may be said that Shippigan being closed for seven months of the year,
during that period the passenger traffic could
land at Halifax,, but in the winter months
there is little travel to or from Canada,
and even the European and North American
line, as he shews, will have the advantage.
But 1 do not consider it necessary to weary
the House with a discussion of the arguments
against the measure, because I believe that we
have not the right to change in the manner
proposed by this resolution, our constitution.
It is not in our commissions. The supporters
of the resolution argue on the extent of our
powers; but I look more to our right to do so,
without first consulting those whom we represent. If I understand Responsible Government,
it means that we either have the sanction of the people to carry a measure, or that
we shall decide upon questions in such a way
as we feel will meet their approval—that we
must ever keep in view a going back to the
people to have our acts approved or condemned. The charter of our rights is not found
in
any one despatch from the Colonial Office, but
runs through a number, granting one concession after another, all tending to this
one point,
that the people shall be consulted, and to them
we are to be responsible for our action here.
Earl Grey says to us, 2nd March, 1847 :—
" The two contending parties will have to decide
their quarrel at present in the Assembly, and ultimately at the hustings."
Again, on the 31st of the same month :—
" The practical end of Responsible Government
would be satisfied by the removability of a single
public officer, provided that through him public opinion could influence the general
administration of
affairs."
Under this resolution before us public opinion cannot have is legitimate influence.
It
is not proposed that the action of members is
ever to he passed upon by the people. Neither
can it be said that because the question of
Union has been for some years agitated that
we were empowered at the last general election to pass it. The resolution of this
house in
1861, on which the hon. Pro. Secy. lays such
great stress, speaks of the obstacles to Union
and of the desirability of having "the question
set at rest." From the action of the delegates
appointed under that resolution it was supposed to be " set at rest" as impracticable,
and
therefore was not a question before the people at
the last General Election, and to pass it now and
put it forever beyond their reach would be unconstitutional and unjust. The supporters
of
this resolution claim Lord Durham as one of the
early promoters of a Union of the Colonies. I
refer them to his views on this point, as given in
his Report to the British Government. He says :
" But the state of the Lower Provinces, though it
justifies the proposal of an union, would not, I think,
render it gracious or even just on the part of Parliament to carry it into effect without referring it for
the ample deliberation and consent of the people of
those Colonies."
Strongly as Lord Durham advocated a Legislative Union of these colonies, hc tells
us it
would not be just to adopt it without the approval of tho people. But I find that
even the politicians of Canada admit that it should be referred
to the people, if there be any doubt as to the
opinions which they held. Mr. Cameron, in the
Canadian Assembly, after approving of the
scheme, proposed a reference to the people, arguing that if they gave their approval
the Union
would be more permanent ; he says :
Mr. Brown, whose name has been mentioned
in this debate, and on whose abilities the Prov.
Secretary has passed such high enconiums, said ;
" If we base this structure, as it ought to be based
on the expressed will of the people themselves. then
1 think we will be offering to those who come after
us, as well as to ourselves, a heritage that every man
should be proud of."
" If there were any doubt about public feeling there
might be propriety in going to the people. But is
there any doubt about it? I am not opposing the
hon gentleman's resolution on constitutional grounds.
I am not denying the rights of the people; if I had
any doubt whatever about what would be the verdict
of the people. I should be the first to say we ought to
go to the people. But it is simply because 1 am satisfied there would be a sweeping
verdict in favor of
the measure that I think it nnnecassary to take it to
the country."
Here is the opinion of one of the first statesmen
of British America, that if there be a shadow of
282
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
doubt as to the opinions of the people, the measure should be submitted to them before
being
passed. In Canada, perhaps, there was no doubt,
but it is very different here. There are few men
in this house who do not believe that a large
majority of the people are opposed to the measure. The hon. Atty. General, who aids
in forcing it through, entertained different opinions in
1861. In a speech delivered here by him on the
8th of March in that year I find him using this
language :
" There is an honorable principle which must pervade and govern men in every position
in life, and I
would not envy the position of those who, hanging on
to the tail of a majority in this house, must feel that
in doing so they are betraying the trust reposed in
them, and misrepresenting the views of their constituents." Again : "This is a matter
connected
with the interests of the people, and they should be
the sole judges."
Mr. McLELAN continued :—We said at that
time that we acted with a view to our accountability to our constituents at the next
election, and
that we were willing to take the responsibility of
having our acts endorsed or not; but the hon.
gentleman will see the difference between the two
cases.—You are proposing to pass a Resolution
upon which no man voting for it will go back to
the people for the ratification of his act. The
Atty. General says we have no precedent for asking a dissolution on this question.
I think it is
ho who should have precedents before handing
over the entire Province to a distant colony without the permission of the people.
He says, he
saw one in the union of New Zealand. The cases
differ, but even there he should have told us that
the people are dissatisfied and seeking a repeal
of the Union by petitions to the British Parliament. And so it will be here, if you
pass this
resolution and carry out its intentions without
consulting the people. But if you can obtain a
majority to favor it, then you may hope for it to
be enduring. It is one of the principles inherent
in the minds of all claiming British origin to
accept and obey the opinions of the majority. 1
do not believe, however, that a majority can be
found to assent to a proposition which would
sweep away our constitution and even blot out
the name of Nova Scotia from the map of the
world.
The hon. member for Richmond, Mr. Miller,
in calling for this resolution, told us how proud
he is of Nova. Scotia. It is not he alone who is
proud of her. We are proud of being Britsh
subjects, of being British Americans, but not
less so, of being called Nova Scotians. That
gentleman, however, seeks to blot out this
name. Whilst he addressed the House I
thought of that anecdote told by Hugh Miller
of the codfishing captain on a voyage to Newfoundland, who, on oing down to his cabin
to
consult his chart. and finding it in shreds and
tatters, told his men they might as well turn
about, for the rats had eaten Newfoundland.
I do not mean to say that Nova Scotia will be
literally devoured, but the rats are striving to
eat out the name from the map of North America. Sir, if this proposition be carried
into effect without consulting the people, I anticipate
the most serious results. There is in the breast
of every man claiming British allegiance a
principle—a feeling—implanted by God himself that he should be consulted in all changes
affecting his rights and privileges and the constitution under which he lives? In
no part of
the British Empire is that feeling more strong
and irrepressible than in this country, and if
the Provincial Secretary carries out his proposition without consulting the people,
this principle will rebel against the act. I have no hesitation in telling the hon.
gentleman that he is
tampering with the loyalty and allegiance of
the people. He knows our attachment to the
mother country is strong, but he must not
count too much on it. Let me read to him as a
warning an extract from the report of that
celebrated Statesman, Lord Durham:
" Indeed, throughout the whole of the North
American Provinces there prevails among the
British population an affection for the Mother
Country, and a preference for its institutions,
which a wise and firm policy, on the part of
the Imperial Government may make the foundation of a safe honorable and enduring connection.
But even this feeling may be impaired, and
I must warn those in whose hands the disposal of
their destinies rests, that a blind reliance on the
all enduring loyalty of our countrymen may be
carried too far."
Then he says speaking of the evils of having
a colony disaffected :—
"If the British Nation shall be content to
retain a barren and injurious Sovereignty, it
will but tempt the chances of foreign aggression, by keeping continually exposed to
a
powerful and ambitious neighbour a distant
dependency, in which an invader would find
no resistance, but might rather reckon an
active co-operation from a portion of the resident population."
The passage of this resolution before us seems
a small matter, but it may produce the evils,
named by Lord Durham. The most trifling
causes often produce the most alarming results. The Castle may be strong and bid defiance
to the invader, but a rat may undermine
its walls. The ship may ontride many a storm
but a small insect may so destroy the strength
of her timbers, that she will go down at the
first blast of the next gale. Our city is healthy
and happy, but a single breath drawn by a
visitor, to the Cholera ship in the harbor, may
bring to us pestilence and death. Taking
Walter Scott's beautiful simile, the tree may
strike deep its roots and send wide its branches,
clothed in luxuriant foliage, but a small worm
may destroy its vitality and make of it an unsightly trunk, from which the raven and
the
vulture shall watch for their prey, or the majestic eagle find a perch.
" I asked the strong oak of the forest, wherefore, its boughs were withered and seared
like
the horns of the Stag, and it showed me that a
small worm had gnawed its roots."
Our forefathers brought to this country the
British Acorn; they gave it congenial soil.
Their descendants have carefully guarded and
tended it, and wherever the sons of Nova. Scotia
have stood, beside the men of the fatherland
in the hour of danger, the world has seen that
we too have "hearts of oak", but strong and
vigorous as this plant of loyalty may be, the
passage of this resolution may touch its vitali
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
283
ty. It will not wither in a night; it did not
spring up in a day, but its decay will be more
rapid than its growth. And when in after
years the Nova Scotian is asked " wherefore
the tree is dead—its branches withered and
scared and a resting place for the great American Eagle" he will point to this little
resolution
as the worm which gnawed its roots.
I ask the Prov. Sec.—I ask the House to
pause, and reflect upon the consequences which
every judicious man who understands the
people of this Province will see are but too
likely to flow from the passage of this resolution. When these consequences are developed
then perhaps the Prov. Secy. will lament the
evil he has brought upon the country. Lord
Palmerston speaking of the Emperor of Russia
said, " there is no greater calamity can befall a
man than to be born to a heritage of triumphant wrong." Sir, the Prov. Secy, had not
the
" heritage." He sought the" wrong," it remains
with this House to say whether the "wrong"
shall be " triumphant."
I entreat the House to withhold from him
the power to make his wrong triumphant—to
prevent the evils which may flow from this
confederacy. The Financial Secretary says
we prophecy evil. I am no prophet, nor yet
am I the son of a prophet, but I may close by
repeating the words which the great King of
Prophets, Isaiah, tells us God himself commanded him to utter, "Say ye not, a confederacy
to all them to whom this people shall say,
a confederacy, neither fear ye their fear, nor
be afraid." Sirs, "Say ye not, a confederacy."
SPEECH OF HON. MR. MCFARLANE.
Hon. Mr. McFARLANE said:—It being the
intention to divide this evening on the resolution under discussion, I do not intend
at any
length to occupy the time and attention of the
House, but the question is one of such great
importance that I cannot allow the resolution
to pass with a silent vote. There is no doubt
that of all the momentous questions that have
agitated this country, this is, beyond measure,
the most important. The step we are about to
take, in every probability, will affect for all
time to come the destinies of our native Province—will doubtless bring prosperity
or adversity, and therefore, demands grave and
careful consideration. No one should assent
to the measure unless assured that it is calculated to promote our future safety and
happiness. There is no doubt that a large majority
of the reflecting men throughout British America, as well as in Britain herself, viewing
the
condition of affairs on this continent, have
come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when these valuable provinces can
no
longer continue in their present disconnected
position, and must either form a united confederacy for purposes of defence, or be
swallowed up by the gigantic powerful republic on our borders. For many years
we have moved on peacefully and prosperously under the fostering care of the
Mother Country, until we have outgrown the
state of infancy, and reached that condition of
maturity, population, and prosperity, which
entails upon us increased responsibilities.—
There can be no doubt that valuable and
important as these North American Provinces
are to the Mother Land, from their position to
the United States they necessarily are the
weakest and least secure of the outlying
Colonies of the Empire, and more than all
others are calculated to cause fears for their
safety. Hence the extreme solitude of Imperial statesmen and soldiers, as well as
politicians, to see them at the earliest possible
moment placed in such a position and so
united together as will best ensure their safety, and strengthen their connection
with the
Crown. It is however all important for us as
Legislators, empowered to deal with the interests of the people, to see that the contemplated
Union is consummated on terms fair and equitable to all the Colonies proposed to be
united
and that the just rights of our own Province
should be carefully guarded. The question is
important to us both in a political and financial
point of view. But above all others, to those
who value British connection, towers the question of defence. And at the present time
when
hordes of armed Fenians threaten an invasion
of our land, it assumes increased importance.
I believe in the maxim that " Union is strength"
and the whole current of entreaty and advice
from the Mother Land, whence we must look
for protection in our time of need, unmistakeably points to a similar conclusion.
If we
desire to ensure a continuance of that protection, it is evident, that whatever opinions
in
the matter we may entertain, the parties from
whom we expect to receive it, believe that protection can be best provided, and our
safety
secured by the whole of the Provinces being
united under one common head. With the
financial features of the case I will not attempt to deal as it has been viewed in
all its
aspects, by gentlemen who have given to this
branch of the subject much care and research.
It was fully gone into during the debate of last
session, and even under the Quebec scheme, I
have been unable to discover where the interests of the province are not fairly guarded.
I cannot however, say, that I was ever a defender of the entire scheme of Union agreed
upon. Its basis undoubtedly is sound and the
measure was prepared as far as possible to
guard the interests of the weaker provinces.
But where the independent judgments of a
number of gentlemen with different interests
to serve, are brought in contact, it is impossible
that each can have his own way and there
necessarily must be mutual compromises, or
nothing could be accomplished. This we are
informed was the case in reference to the Quebec scheme, and there being no controlling
influence, the wonder is that so much was done.
But under the resolution to which the House is
now asked to assent, this will be remedied, and
the unfair pressure of any province justly
modified. We can place the utmost confidence
in the integrity and love of justice which
characterises British Statesman, when the facts
are fairly brought before them under the terms
of the resolution, which affords the smallest and
weakest colony, little Prince Edward Island
the same voice in the advocacy of its claims as
will be enjoyed by either of the enormous Canadian provinces. There is no reason to
suppose that the interests and wishes of each,
colony will not be strongly urged and justly
dealt with. But it is said Upper Canada, from
its rapidly increasing wealth and population
after Confederation, will use her power and
284
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
crush the Maritime Provinces. I deny that any
such power will be exercised. But even should
this be the case, what possible motive could
there be for such a course? On the contrary,
with a common revenue and common interest,
it would clearly be for the benefit of the people
of Upper Canada that the lower provinces
should prosper equally with themselves—that
their population should increase—their resources be developed, and their manufactures
and
trade be extended. And the same feeling
would be felt towards Canada by the lower
provinces. The prosperity and advancement
of one would be felt to be to the advantage of
all, and the local jealousies which now actuate
us would speedily pass away. It is true, our
present means of communication with Canada
are circuitous and liable to interruption ; but
with the construction of the Intercolonial Railway which will immediately follow union,
this
defect will be remedied, and with the rapid and
easy communication, and the increased trade
that will doubtless spring into existence, we
will soon get to know each other—confidence
will take the place of distrust, and our people
will feel that a larger field is thrown open to
their enterprise. It is said the corrupt statesmen of Canada, in their anxiety for
union, are
animated with selfish motives, and want to get
control of our country and revenues to pay
their burdensome public debts. This is a device of the enemy got up to frighten our
people.
Any person who has travelled over that vast
country and become acquainted with its great
resources and growing trade, cannot fail to be
convinced that this is entirely groundless.—The
public debt of Canada, in proportion to her population, is little in excess of our
own, while her
resources and ability to meet it are equaly good.
But I am satisfied that altho' Canadians are
certainly anxious for Union with us, it is not
on this selfish ground. They know that, while
their country is rapidly increasing in population and wealth, without more intimate
connection with the Maritime Provinces and an
outlet to the sea at all seasons, they will be
continually at the mercy of the people of the
United States; who having cautiously put an
end to the Reciprocity Treaty, threaten also to
terminate the transport of Canadian bonded
Goods over their territory and thus worry the
people into a desire for Annexation. Should
this be the case and the United States be thus
increased by the addition of three millions of
people, and their great country severed from
British rule ; could the maritime provinces
even with the aid of Britain, for any length of
time maintain their connection with the empire? No, Mr. Speaker, let Canada fall under
Yankee rule, and we may make up our minds
soon to follow. The old flag under which we
have hitherto rested in peace and revelled in
liberty will depart from our shores, and the
Stars and Stripes flaunt in triumph over
our Citadel and Forts. But it is agreed
by our opponents that this resolution
should not be adopted without an appeal to the
people being first made—and that the course
we are pursuing is unconstitutional. In my
opinion the objection is unsound and if the
request was assented to it would lead to no
practical result. Of the constitutional right of
the Representatives of the people in Parliament, to deal with all matters affecting
their
constituents, there can be no doubt, the princi
ple is admitted by all authorities on constitutional law, and certainly under no circumstances
could representatives of the people be
returned and this House so untrammelled by
pledges, and free to exercise an independent
judgment on the question as the gentlemen
who now occupy these branches. But we are
told that nine tenths of the people are against
Union, and that they have proved this to be
true from the petitions laid on the table of the
House. Now what proofs do they give us that
this is true, or that any large number of the
people are opposed even to the Quebec Scheme.
I have before me a list of every petition
presented from every part of this Province
during this session up to this time. The only
parties that have done anything—which have
sent in any respectable number of names—are
those to which the hon member for Richmond
was instrumental in sending petitions; namely
Inverness, Richmond, and Antigonishe. From
Inverness we have 1119 petitioners out of 20,000
people; Hants sends 607; Lunenburg, 502;
Digby, 584; Antigonishe, 1920; King's 445;
Guysboro, 367; Victoria, 531; North Colchester,
126; Shelburne, 250; East Halifax, 205; Cumberland, 172; Richmond, 638. Making a total
of 8000. Digby, Cape Breton, and Yarmouth
do not appear to have sent in a single petition.
Are not these facts proof that there is no such
feeling of excitement against the scheme as
has been represented? ls that evidence that
the people of Nova Scotia are working to
exhibit their indignation against any person
who deals with this scheme? I believe that
the people of this Province having considered
this matter, have made up their minds that
the event is inevitable, and that they are
content to trust their rights and liberties to the
gentlemen who are within these walls. They
are satisfied that tied up with the people as we
are all of us—that whatever we possess being
bound up in the prosperity of the country— we
are not likely to jeopardize the public interests.
Under these circumstances I feel that we are
safe in passing the resolution before us, and
that on its adoption largely depends the
safety of the people of this country. lt is for us
to consider if the Confederation of these Provinces will increase their strength and
power, it
is not our duty as well as interest, to yield to
the advice of the British Government and pass
this measure. 1 believe that such will be the
results of Union, and I am therefore ready for
one to support the resolution, believing that in
doing so we are tending to perpetuate British
rule, and British liberty through the length and
breadth of British North America.
Mr. TOWNSEND—I wish simply to observe
that the people have not petitioned because
they feel that the petitions are not regarded.
SPEECH OF MR. TOBIN.
Mr. TOBIN said :—I feel that I cannot allow
this question to be decided without at least
offering a few observations on the resolution
before the House. I have waited until the
last hour to address the House on the subject,
feeling that every opportunity should be given
to my constituents, as they are in this immediate neighborhood, if they wished to
raise
their voices against the Confederation of these
Provinces of British North America. I have
waited, and now find that no united action has
been taken by my constituents in the Western
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
285
Division of the county of Halifax, against this
scheme, although they have had abundant
time to do so. It is hardly necessary for me to
allude to their sentiments, since the hon. member who has last spoken has shown that
the
Western Division of Halifax has not sent in a
single petition against the Confederation of
these Colonies (Cheers) Before I came into
this Legislature—before I had any idea of political life, I was in favour of a Union
of British
North America. I was in favour of it because
I thought it would give a higher standard to
the people—that it would give them an elevation of sentiment and thought, and a respectability
of position that they cannot expect to
have in their present isolated position. Therefore it has been from my first inception
of
public life that I have earnestly and zealously
advocated the object which the public men of
the day have in view—a Union of British North
America. When I looked at the state of feeling
in this House last session, I was of opinion
that there were hardly half a dozen of men
belonging to the party with which I was connected, that were ready to come up to the
mark
and vote for a Union of the Provinces. To my
utter surprise, on the meeting of this House, I
found that an entire change had taken place
in the opinions and feelings of gentlemen, and
I of course could not otherwise than suppose
that they are influenced by the knowledge
they have gained of the views of their constituents during the recess of Parliament.
I
have in my conversations with members of
this House stated over and over again that I
was not in favour of a Union of these Provinces without the consent of the people.
I
feel that with their consent a Union might be
consummated that would be highly beneficial,
and be regarded with esteem and respect.
I have offered my opinions so often on this
subject, that if the question was not to be taken
to-night, I would not raise my voice, for I am
utterly unable to address the House at length,
labouring as I have been for some days under
indisposition. Now I find that the discussion of
this question in the Canadian Parliament, in
1865, occupied from the 3rd Jan. to the 26th
March. The House discussed the question as
in Committee, and everybody had an ample opportunity of expressing his views. The
subject,
however, has been so often discussed in this Legislature—at public meetings, and in
the Press,
that it is an old question here, whilst it was a
comparatively new one in Canada. Therefore,
it is not all necessary that a great deal of time
should be occupied with the discussion of this
question.
If we regard the condition of these Provinces
we must at once see that the time has come
when a change must take place in their present
condition. They have, to some extent, outgrown their present Colonial condition—their
state of pupilage; and, therefore, we believe the
time has come when they want to be united for
greater security—for mutual protection. I believe that the people of this Colony do
wish to
continue the connection with Great Britain,
and if Union is an indispensable condition to
the perpetuity of that connection, as we are
told by the British Government and statesmen,
we should not hesitate to adopt it. Great Britain has turned her attention towards
the condition of these Colonies; she has looked at
them with a parental regard, and offered them
her advice; and it is only our duty that we accept that advice in the same spirit
in which it
is offered.
In view of the importance of this question, it
is necessary that we should all approach its
discussion with that gravity and respect that
is due from us as the representatives of the
people. In the commencement of the debate I
raised my voice against anything like a display of personal feeling and party prejudices—
that we should deal with the question in a becoming spirit, and entire regard to the
interests
of the people who have entrusted their affairs
to our care.
I do not intend to refer to the speeches which
have been made on this question, but there is
one part of the address of the hon. member for
Yarmouth that I cannot allow to pass without
a comment. He pointed to the map and showed the difference of latitude and longitude
between Nova Scotia, Montreal, Toronto, and
other parts of Upper Canada, for the purpose
of showing that the characteristics of the country were unfavorable for union. I confess
the
confederacy will not present that compact appearance which the United States present,
but
when you look at the difference of longitude
between Maine and California, you need not
think of the difference between Halifax and
Toronto. You do not hear of California being
discontented with the Union, separated as she
is by natural barriers from the rest of her sister
States. She is a flourishing member of the
Union. Railroads and telegraphs have brought
communities together heretofore at distances
which precluded the possibility of feeling. It
will therefore be seen that the argument of the
hon. member does not amount to a great deal
after all. When we look back at the position
which this question has occupied for a great
many years, we find that all of the leading
minds of this province have advocated Union;
but it was not until 1863 that Canada was willing to listen to propositions from the
Maritime
Provinces. Circumstances have changed in
the Province of Canada, and as an evidence of
the feelings of the people I need only refer to
the fact, that after the Quebec scheme was matured, no less than 50 constituencies
were appealed to, and only four candidates appeared
on the hustings opposed to the scheme, and
only one was returned in opposition. Here you
have an evidence of the popularity of the
scheme of Confederation in Canada. The result of the elections in New Brunswick has
been different, but now we find that a great
change is rapidly taking place in the sentiments of the people of that Provmce. In
Newfoundland the question has assumed a most
satisfactory aspect; although occupying an isolated position, the legislature has
shown a
most favorable disposition to enter the union
when Nova Scotia and the other provinces give
their assent to the measure. As respects
Prince Edward Island, I am not able just
now to say anything definite, but no doubt
she will also fall in in good time. It
has been said by the Provincial Secretary
that a Union was impracticable whilst New
Brunswick occupied a position of uncompromising hostility to the scheme, but the feeling
of that Colony, as I have just stated, is under
going is constant change, and it is therefore
286
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
right that we should be prepared to embrace
the first opportunity of dealing with the question. As respects the Quebec resolutions,
I have
examined them myself. They were submitted
to the Imperial Government, and Mr. Cardwell
only takes exception to two of the resolutions
—with respect to the constitution of the Legislative Council, and the pardoning power
granted to the Lieutenant Governors. After having been examined by the statesmen and
press
of England, as well as of North America, and
approved by such eminent authorities on both
continents, I think these resolutions must be entitled to much respect; and therefore
I cannot
go to the length that some people do in respect
to this scheme. Although delegates may be appointed by the Provinces to discuss the
question of Colonial Union in England, the resolutions must form the platform—the
basis of that
discussion. I would myself prefer a legislative
Union of the Provinces, but I feel that it is impracticable, in view of the fact that
it is opposed
by Lower Canada, with its large French population and peculiar laws and Institutions
which
they have retained since the time of Wolfe.—
Their prejudices must be respected.and there
fore I believe, from my conversation with
gentlemen of influence in Lower Canada, that
we cannot have a legislative Union at present,
though do not know what may be in the womb
of time. The first course that is to be pursued
to adopt is a Federal Union, as propounded in
the Quebec Scheme.
Mr. Tobin concluded by apologizing for detaining the House at so late an hour, but he
could not refrain from offering some remarks
on account of the importance of the question,
and set down amid cheers.
In answer to an enquiry, the Provincial
Secretary stated that it was the intention of the Government to bring the debate to
a close that night. The session was already
far advanced, and gentlemen were desirous of
returning to their homes. A great deal of ordinary business yet remained to be transacted.
Mr. MILLER said:—I am desirous that we
should get to the ordinary business of the
House as soon as possible, and I am therefore
ready to forego any observations that I
might feel disposed to make. I have indeed
peculiar reasons for wishing to address the
House in reply to the attacks made upon me.
Some gentlemen have attempted to charge me
with inconsistency in connection with the
question of a reference to the people at the
polls, but if I could reply I would soon show
the fallacy of the statements that have been
made in reference to my course. I could
justify my action, in this great crisis of the
affairs of British North America, in a way
that would be a conclusive answer to the
charge made against me. If the present crisis
was an ordinary one, I would be one of the
last men to consent that any great question
should be decided without going to the people,
but I feel that to pursue such a course at the
present time would be suicidal—that it would
be tantamount to throwing the whole thing
away. Therefore there is no man in this House
who has greater reasons than myself to wish to
speak tonight, but in deference to the desire of
the majority I am ready to forego that privilege, and allow to pass unnotice the slanders
that have been uttered against me for pursuing
what I consider is a patriotic course.
Mr. ROBERTSON—I think, as we are discussing the Quebec scheme, it is due to the House
and the country that every gentlemen who is
connected with that scheme, should explain
fully the reasons that induced them to sign
those resolutions. The Attorney General is
the only gentlemen who has attempted to deal
with the question. The Quebec scheme has
been discussed here, and I did not know it was
to be brought up.
Hon. PROV. SEC. I have seen quite enough
to prove to me that gentlemen have been
speaking against time, and wish to delay
this question.
Hon. ATTY. GENERAL—Gentlemen will remember that we wasted a considerable time
during the morning and afternoon sessions because no gentleman was disposed to speak,
and
we were obliged to adjourn even before the
proper hour. It has been well understood that
this question was to be decided to-night.
Hon. PROV. SECRETARY — I have been
obliged every day, since this question has
been under discussion, to move a call of the
House in order to have the attendance of gentlemen.
Mr. ROSS—The members of the opposition
are always here.
Mr. LOCKE—It is twelve o'clock. Surely we
should adjourn.
Hon. PROV. SECRETARY—I find in the press
of this country most dishonorable attempts
made to stir up strife and disaffection and disloyalty in this county. We have given
every
opportunity to gentlemen to speak on this subject, and if they have not availed themselves
of it, it is their own fault entirely. I do not
think that it is right that this House should
longer continue this debate, and retard the
general business.
Mr. LOCKE—The Provincial Secretary is
afraid of public opinion operating on this Legislature.
Dr. BROWN—I hope the government will
consent to an adjournment, for I do not feel
well enough to address the House.
Mr. RAY said he did not intend to occupy
the time of the house on this question, but the
Provincial Secretary having made some observations in reference to him and his constituents
on
a previous day, he felt it his duty to place before
the house and the country a contradiction of the
statement which had been made.
Dr. BROWN suggested that the Government
adjourn the debate.
Hon PROV. SECY. said that the session being
far advanced, and in view of the appeals being
made to the country by the Opposition press, the
debate, according to previous announcement,
would be urged to a conclusion.
Mr. ROBERTSON said that the Prov. Secy., in
moving the Resolution, remarked that the time
for discussing the question had passed,—the
manner in which the debate was forced on seemed
to support the assertion.
Dr. BROWN moved that the debate be adjourned.
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
287
The motions were subsequently withdrawn to
allow the discussion to proceed.
REMARKS OF MR. BLACKWOOD.
Mr. BLACKWOOD said :—I think that no
member should hesitate to give his opinions to
the country on such an occasion as this, and I
fear that the undue pressure brought to bear to
force us to a division will have the effect of preventing some gentlemen from expressing
their
views. Occupying the position in which this
Legislature is placed, I think that ample time
should be given to every member to collect his
thoughts and bring them to bear upon the discussion. The resolution before us I do
not intend
to support. I al 1in believed in Responsible
Government and the principle upon which that
sort of Government rests—that the people shall
be ruled according to their well understood wishes. A member who knows the views of
his constituents on this question should be prepared to
give his vote like a man; but a member not
knowing those visws, or knowing that a majority
of those whom he represents are against the measure, is in duty bound to vote against
the resolution which will takeaway their privileges without appeal. I feel it to be
my duty to refrain
from giving away the rights of the people without affording them an opportunity of
expressing
their opinions and judging for themselves. If
the great intelligence possessed by the people of
this country were brought to bear on this house
to-night, it would be seen that they would not
part with their rights without a struggle. Union
may be a good thing, but I should like to be sure
that we are going to gain some substantial advantages by it. I find in the speeches
of those
who advocate the scheme a great deal of mere
theory. Looking at the matter as a surrender of
some of our privileges, I think it behooves us to
examine well before passing the resolution. I
have yet expressed no opinion on the principle
of Union, but I will now say to the house and to
the country that I will assent to no scheme until
the people have passed upon it. By the division
to-night we may establish what will be called an
union, but will that be a union ofthe people ?
Give me a union of heart, and thought, and action—a union that will strengthen the
arm and
nerve the heart upon every occasion. The people, I maintain, are able to judge of
the question
for themselves, and if they choose Union, I will
gladly assent, but if they reject the scheme, away
goes the proposition. It may be said that this
Legislature constitutes the united wisdom of the
country; and, while I admit that a large amount
of intelligence is to be seen around these benches, I feel that, in the locality which
I represent,
there are men from whom I should like to hear.
As the hour is late, I will not further occupy the
time of the house, and I will conclude by saying
that this matter should be placed in the hands of
the people.
SPEECH OF MR. ROSS.
Mr. Ross said ;—At this hour of the night, or
rather of the morning, I do not intend to say
much on the question now before the house. As
remarked by my friend, Mr. Blackwood, the
Provincial Secretary is driving us into a corner,
when forcing us to a division when we should be
in our beds. I have taken a large number of
notes, and intended defining my position, if not
to the satisfaction of the majority of this house,
at least to a majority of the people of Nova Scotia, and particularly that of my own
constituents.
A singular but unholy union had taken place.—
Even during the delegation to Quebec a certain
gentleman in the Legislative Council and the
Provincial Secretary could scarcely find language
strong enough to express the terms of abuse and
reproach which the one applied to the other.—
When they got those princely dinners,—those
ovations, with abundance of good wine, they began to forget what was due to Nova Scotia
and
to the interests of the people. As long as these
were opposed to each other the wrongs and injuries done to our people were well exposed;
but
now both support each other, without regard to
the interests of Nova Scotia. We are told that
we are on the eve of a great crisis, and it is true
that some Fenians are organizing in the States,
but they intend to restore to Ireland what we are
about destroying in this Province, namely, our
noble and glorious Constitution. The American people are now beginning to enjoy peace,
and it will be the work of years to place their financial affairs on a sound and proper
basis.—
They desire peace, and both France and England will look with jealous eye on any extension
of their power on this continent. France is interested in Mexico, and Great Britain
in the
North American Provinces, and both would
unite to prevent further increase of territory to
the States. This is the best guarantee for peace.
In the event of war it is acknowledged by those
sent out officially to report on our defences that
Canada, with its long line of land and water
boundary is our weak spot, and that it cannot be
defended as well as Nova Scotia, which is almost
surrounded by water. Here we have men who
will defend us, and are willing to do so ; but
force us into a union with Canada, and you will
create a feeling of disloyalty among our people.
the extent of which it is painful to contemplate,
Therefore, in the question of defence we gain
weakness instead of strength. It is said that,
with the present rate of consumption, coal will be
soon scarce in Great Britain, and then Nova
Scotia and Cape Breton would be the last places
that would be abandoned. Mr. Archibald says
that this house will remain. But take away
from us the power of self-government, and you
take away what we most dearly cherish. The
Quebec scheme is largely copied from the constitution of New Zealand, and it is singular
that
the constitution of that country was published
by Mr. McGee about the time that our delegates
were giving away Nova Scotia to meet Canadian
necessities. In New Zealand there are nine different Provinces, each having its own
distinct
local Government, and there they complain that
they are expensive, without any benefits arising
from the expenditure. In that country they are
strongly advocating separation, and the whole
288
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
Province of Auckland is unanimous in agitating Â
a separation from the Southern Island. The
Confederation works injuriously to the interests
of the people, and we are about adopting what
they are most anxious to reject. The Governor
of New Zealand is called the Superintendent, and
is elected by the people ; but here our local Governor, selected by the Government
at Ottawa,
would be some creature that had claims on the. '
political party in power and who would not have
popularity enough to get a seat at Ottawa. Such
will be the men who will be the future Governors
of these Colonies. The House of Assembly is bad
enough now, but then it will be worse ; they will be like the case ofa certain house
from which
the money-changers were driven. The Provincial Secretary says he did not approach
the
member from Richmond. That reminded me of
an old man once in my county having a a copy of
Bunyan's Holy War, and showing a neighbor
the picture of the taking of Mansoul, said—" See,
see, what the big D - l won't do, he has got
the little d is to do for him." Some influences are at work, as will be seen by the
sudden
change in the minds of some members: If we
are to have British institutions, why do we not
follow their pattern? When Scotland was united
to England, the local Parliament was abolished,
and such was the case in Ireland. If we are to
have Union, let it be alegislative one. There is
something grand in the idea of one Government,
one Legislature—but in retaining the local legislature, we will have the expense without
any corresponding benefit—the shadow without the substance,—a nest of corruption for
persons who
will not be able to obtain seats at Ottawa. Our
present revenue is about $ 3.20 per head on our
population ; out of this we should have to hand
over to Canada for the General Government
$ 2.40, leaving 80 cents for all local purposes, to
which we add royalty on coal and some other
small amounts. The first clause of the local articles gives the power of self-taxation,
which
is just what we should avoid; but without
it our roads and bridges will go down. There is
no doubt but that the delegates anticipated in
their happy moments the great position that they
would occupy under Confederation, forgetting
the interest of Nova Scotia in the desire for position and self aggrandisement—imitating
Nero,
who fiddled when Rome was burning. The
member for Kings, Dr. Hamilton, said that in
medical practice, physicians often try experiments, but it  only on sick men or dead
bodies.
Novascotia is neither sick nor dead, but sound
and in good health, wealth, and prosperity.—
The Prov. Secretary says that there are but few
petitions against the measure; but was it not
sent to all parts of the Province that Confederation would not be considered this
session ? This
was no doubt a piece of strategy on the part of
the Pro. Secretary, who now takes everybody by
surprise. There was one petition that I presented signed by all the magistrates at
sessions
with the Custos at the head,—a pretty strong indication that I at least am representing
the views
of my constituents. The whole history of Con
federation is based on the ambition of some of our
public men and on the necessities of Canada.—
 Ambition is the sin of angels, and even politicians
finding that they were losing power, must go to
Ottawa. They are like the evil one, as described
by Milton, who would rather rule in hell than fill
a subordinate place in heaven. I have no ambition to gratify, no self interest to
advance—but
as I was early taught that Responsible Government was government according to the
well understood wishes of the people, I will not agree to
sell their birthrights without asking their consent, but will on the contrary stand
by what I
consider the dearest rights of Nova Scotia, and
 the express views of those whom I represent.
SPEECH 0F MR. FRASER.
Mr. JAS FRASER said :—If this were a question of ordinary importance, I would content
myself by giving a silent vote, as I have frequently done, but on a. measure of such
great
consequence I do not think that I would be
justified in doing so. I will tell the house candidly that my opposition to the resolution
before us is not due to any hostile feelings in reference to the principle of union.
I do not
think it. is necessary that petitions should
come from my constituents to inform me of
their wishes, because, living as I do among
them, I must be aware of their views, and un—
less a very great change has taken place since
I left them I know that they are not prepared
to adopt the proposition of union at present.
At this time last year a scheme of Confederation
was before the people, and they had an opportunity of examing and judging it. They
did examine it, and a majority of them became
opposed to it—not because a great deal of
pains and talent had not been taken with the
measure; because now that we are about to
form a new delegation, I do not think that we
can send gentlemen of more talent and more
knowledge of the business they have to perform than those who went before. If I vote
for this resolution, when I return to my constituents and tell them that I voted for
union
they will naturally ask what kind. of a union
we are to get, and I shall be unable to tell
them ;—last year I could give them the details,
this year I can only say that the matter is to
be arranged three thousand miles away, and
if they ask me whether the representatives of
the people will have an opportunity of passing on it afterwards can, only tell them
no
such opportunity will be afforded, and that
they will be bound by the arrangements which
are made in England. I regret that my convictions compel me to ditfer from many whose
opinions I value, and whose friendship I desire to maintain, but I must act conscientiously,
and do what I believe to be for the best interests of the country. I must say I cannot
understand those who say that persons who do
not fall in with the idea. of union are disloyal,
—the people whom I represent are as loyal as
any upon the face of the globe, and if any man
had the hardihood to charge disloyalty upon
them it would not be necessary to hurl back
the imputation—it would rebound with greater
force than that with which it came. Union
I believe to be desirable when we are prepared for it, but at present the people are
not
prepared, and they do not understand how
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
289
we would be in a better or stronger position
if we disturbed our institutions. While union,
if not formed in opposition to the wishes of
the people would be strength, a union so forced
upon them would be weakness. I hope to see
the day when all these colonies will be united,
and I am hardly prepared to go the length of
some who propose to wait until another general election,—we can understand the opinions
of our constituents without waiting for that,
and it is to be feared that other matters would
be brought in on such an occasion. I will not
longer detain the house, and I can assure you
that when the people are prepared for union
I will not be found an obstacle in the way
believing that a majority of them are at
present opposed to the measure; I cannot be a
party to an act which will sweep away their
rights.
Hon. FIN. SECY. explained to the house that
in parting with Mr. LeVesconte, who was
abroad upon public service, he had promised
that gentleman to pair off with him in case
the question of Confederation was brought,
forward. He had no reason to believe that
Mr. L. would be opposed to the resolution before the house, but lest it might be supposed
that he had broken faith, he would refrain
from voting on the division.
SPEECH OF MR. LAWRENCE.
Mr. LAWRENCE said :—I rise to make a few
remarks on the question before the House, in
discharge of the duty I owe to my constituents, and also to the country at large.
I feel
some reluctance in addressing the House at
this late period of the session, but the profound
anxiety with which I regard the feeling of the
people impels me to speak. Standing as I do
the representative of a free and intelligent
people, honored with their confidence, anxious
to discharge faithfully the trust reposed in me,
I feel it is my duty to express my sentiments
freely on the present occasion. There can be
no great love for union where the parties to be
joined have not the slightest desire to associate
with each other,—right or wrong, beneficial or
otherwise, it is impossible to persuade the mass
of the people that the system which gives to
them an equal voice in the government of the
country is not the best. How many of the present members would be here, if they said
to
the people in 1863, that they were going to
change the constitution of the country? All
great questions ought to be examined with
caution. Party considerations should sink, and
as to the spirit with which I enter into this debate, I claim nothing more than to
know what
course is best to secure harmony and loyalty
in our country. Neither the smiles of friends
nor the frowns of foes no political thunder
either on the right hand or the left will move
me, or change my mind as regards the action
taken by the government on this question. A
mere politician, thrown up by the dark and turbid waters of party, actuated by self-interest,
can have no lasting influence over a question
of this sort,—this is no party question; it passes beyond all such considerations,
and such
feelings should be far from every mmd, Gentlemen mistake the feeling of the people
of this
country, if they hope to excite their admiration, or secure their confidence by displaying
such newborn zeal in forcing confederation on
the people. The spirit of liberty will make itself heard wherever it exists. Let us
take
care of our rights, for political expediency in
limiting a people's freedom is a dangerous
principle, and will never satisfy a free people.
I believe one of our great objects, at the present time, should be to foster a spirit
of peace
and harmony amongst our own people, and
harmony can only be maintained by a patriotic, wise, and noble use of power. The people
in every part of this country must feel that
their rights are protected. So far from lending ourselves to any scheme which would
threaten the safety or prosperity of our
country, we should not hesitate to plant ourselves in opposition even to our political
associates when they seek to promote it.
We are a free people, prosperous beyond
doubt, advancing cautiously in wealth, under
the protection of our good old flag, the only
banner which floats over a limited monarchy
and a free people. Under the British constitution we have far more freedom than any
other
country on the face of the earth. We have
sprung from a nation in whose veins the blood
of freedom circulates, and who carry everywhere the deepest attachment to their Sovereign.
It is the spirit of that constitution which
unites and invigorates every part of the Empire, down to the lowest member, but to
pass
confederation, without asking the voice of the
people, will only be sowing the seed of dissatisfaction and contention among a vey
large portion of our population. A representative of the
people is bound by the highest moral obligations to respect their wishes, and obey
their
will, when their sober judgment has been ascertained. Now I deplore the intolerant
spirit
which I see every day manifested around these
Benches; it is utterly inconsistent with the
true spirit of freedom. The foundation of free
constitutional government is the voice of a majority of the people, and so long as
it deserves
the name, and wins the affection of the people,
it can never be in any great danger. Now if a
question of right arises between the constituent and the representative body, by what
authority shall it be decided? If you leave it to
the Judges, they will tell you that the law of
Parliament is above them. What then remains but to leave it to the people to decide
for
themselves? My political career may be short
and the accomplishment may fall far short of
the purposes, but the consciousness of duty discharged shall be glorious. The people
are not
asking for any change, and this subject would
sleep if it were not for the rising zeal of some
who dread an appeal to the people. Interested
men may call for measures which they themselves should be most ready to lament and
condemn, but upon them let the responsibility
rest.
Now, in regard to Confederation, I say frankly, that whenever a majority ot the people
speak in favor of union, let them have it; but I
will not consent to a change of the constitution
without their consent. If the representatives
are unfaithful to their trust, and abuse their
powers by disposing of the birth-right of the
people, then responsible government is not
worthy of the name. We have no right to surrender the liberties and privileges which
we
were appointed to guard. The multitude, even
though they know very little of political science,
290
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
can form a good practical judgment upon government in general, and even a better one
than those in office, who cannot see their own
defects and errors.
The first move in regard to a union of any
kind was made in the session of 1864 by this
Legislature. The Provincial Secretary then
moved a resolution asking us to empower the
Lieutenant Governor to communicate with
New Brunswick and P. E. Island, in reference
to the appointment of delegates to meet at some
central point, to take into consideration and
agree upon a basis for a union of the maritime
provinces. That resolution was passed almost
without opposition. I think it was the duty of
the delegates first to have reported, for the information of the people of these provinces,
what their success was as regards a union of
the maritime provinces. But the action taken
by the delegates at that time as to a maritime
union passed away like a morning cloud or a
dream in the night,—poor Nova Scotia was lost
sight of, and a delegation to Canada was formed, without asking the lower provinces
whether they were willing or not.
I think it is the duty of every man around
these benches to define his position in regard
to this great question. My position is this:
I am in favor of a union of the maritime provinces, but not a union with Canada; that
was
my position from the time the scheme of union
was first brought forward, and I still entertain
the same views, and I believe thatit is the
view of a very large portion of the people of
this country. Before I would betray the trust
reposed in me, or consent, by any act or vote
of mine, to surrender one jot or one tittle of the
rights, or the honor, or the glory of this country
"my right hand shall forget its cunning, and
my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."
We have heard a good deal said about the
Fenians, and about disloyalty to the Crown.—
What does all this mean ? Is it to frighten
the people into Confederation? Nova Scotia
is as loyal as any other country on the face of
the earth, but do not disturb the birthright of
the people without their consent. Sir, as
regards the Fenians or any other foe, whenever they come to disturb the peace of our
country, I as one am ready to meet them under
the British flag—the flag of freedom; but I
intend on this occasion, at whatever hazard or
sacrifice of a personal kind, to do what I consider is my duty to my constituents
and the
country at large.
The principle which lies at the foundation of
our constitution, is that which declares the
people to be the source of political power. A
constitution written on paper is not a safe one,
a constitution to be safe must be written on
the hearts of the people. The powerful temptation to betray our trust, held out by
the Government, to surrender up our own convictions, ought to be resisted; a steady
adherence
to truth, whether in favor or out of favor, must
mark the course of every man who will not
lose his own respect. I do not despise popularity, I respect it. But it is that popularity
which follows, and not that which is sought
after; and if there be one quality, which a
representative of our country ought to cultivate
at the present time above all others, it is
independence. Not a defiance of the well
understood wishes of the people; his course
should be a manly and steady adherence to
principle, through good report and evil report:
a stout defiance of what he considers right
through sunshine and through storm. Such
independence every man should cultivate who
undertakes to serve his country. Caesar, who
yielded to that infirmity of noble minds—the
love of power, fell in the very Senate Chamber under the avenging dagger of Brutus.—
Again, Napoleon's brilliant but unwise career
was checked, at the moment when he gained
his highest position. When he had kept the
nations in dread, he was sent a prisoner to an
island far from every field of his glory, and
where the dashing billows mocked at the
surges of his own passions. Our liberty,
once taken away, may never return, and I
see by the features of the proposed scheme,
if it be carried into effect, we would be
exposed to two dangers: centralization and
disunion;—the General Government would
have gigantic power, and might employ its
functions to enrich one section of the union
at the expense of the other. Its complex
character—blending the powers of the General
Government with those of the several Local
Governments, exposes it to dangers from its
own action.
We are yet in the freshness of youth, and
the fairest of our sisters, our seaboard and mineral wealth hold out a strong temptation
to
those abroad. But, sir. I would say with all
sincerity, let the people of Nova Scotia make
their own choice. The power of figures has
been brought forward in gigantic appearence
before the people of this country, differing in
the various calculations to the amount of
some millions of dollars, but it would puzzle
the brain of the best mathematical scholar to
arrive at the real truth of the matter. We may
rely upon it that trade will regulate itself like
water, it will find its level. That union is
strength, is true, but to be strength it must be
a whole union, not a half. We see nothing like
a united public opinion in favor of Confederation in this country,—the contrary is
the case,
public opinion seems to be split throughout the
hand,—so much so, that a small majority in favor of the resolution would be a very
poor safeguard of a lasting union. It has been said with
a good deal of force, that the power to deal
with this question is invested in the representatives of the people. I do not deny
but they
have such power, for a government with a large
majority can do almost anything. But such
power in regard to a change in the constitution
without the consent of the people of this country wlll never be exercised by me. Slight
causes have given rise to the fiercest and most
cruel wars which history records, the ploughing up of a few acres of soil plunged
the states
of Greece into a sanguinary conflict. An attempt to collect ship money shook the empire
of England, and drove Hampden to the field,
where he lost his life in one of the first battles
ever fought for constitutional liberty, and
brought the annointed head of a king to the
block. A tax of a; few cents on a pound of
tea drove the colonies into a war, which broke
the dominion of the British government, and
left them independent states.
Again, look at Ireland. She constitutes a
portion of the British Empire. What battle
has been fought in modern times by the British
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
291
arms, where Irish blood has not been freely
spilled, and where Irish valor has not contributed to win the day? The Irishmen in
the
ranks have ever been true to their trust. They
bore the British flag in triumph against the
marshals of France. At Waterloo, they upheld it for Wellington against the splendid
array which Napoleon mustered in person, and
yet what is the state of Ireland to-day? Why,
the fertile soil of Ireland, teeming with abundance, is made to support foreign landlords,
absentees, who squander abroad the wealth
which Ireland yields, and thousands of her
sons and fair daughters have to come to America, where they can have all the safeguards
to
industry and enterprise.
Every Novascotian can survey his country
with patriotic pride; he may sit in her councils,
an equal among equals, and no man who represents her people should surrender their
rights. If he does so he is already dead to the
noble impulses which can alone preserve peace
and liberty. The protracted discussion carried
on in this House, and the angry feelings which
too often characterized it, only fill the country
with apprehension, and impede the progress
of public business. A storm which sweeps
the ocean and drives the vessel before its fury,
makes the mariner look more closely to his
means of safety, and a political storm which
threatens to disturb the constitution of a country, only brings about a new impulse
as to the
great elementary principles upon which the
fabric rests. Now, as regards the petitions that
have come from the country, they have not
met with that cordial reception which they are
entitled to. It has been said that they were
signed by men, women and children, and were
got up by a political opposition. Now, sir, as
regards the petitions that came from North
Hants, I beg to say from my own personal
knowledge of the names attached to them that
they were not signed by women and children,
but were signed by Conservatives and Liberals
(so called); men that know their duty both to
themselves and their country, and would not
be backward in speaking out for the protection
of their birth right, if called upon to do so.
General Harrison, when about to give his vote
on a great question, made a noble reply to a
friend, who told him he would ruin himself by
the vote which he proposed to give, he exclaimed, " It is better to ruin myself than
to destroy
the constitution of my country."
In a free government there must always be
divisions and parties; and there should be,—
because eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,
and nothing so stimulates vigilance as the conflicting opinions of parties. But we
should
ever remember that the claims of our country
stand far above the claims of party. Why
does a patriot await the result with suspended
animation and pale cheek? Because upon the
issue hangs the fate of his country. If victory
light upon his standard, his altar and his fireside are safe. Now, sir, with our fertile
soil,
our noble streams, our mineral wealth, large
seaboard for navigation and shipbuilding—our
population intelligent, enterprising, and religious,—these will enable us to advance
with a
steady and sure march in civilization. And I
am for that sort of industry which spreads
wealth among the laboring classes, and elevates
them gradually in the scale. I believe in firm
protection of the rights of the weak, whenso
ever they are in danger by the power of the
strong; and wherever you find Englishmen,
Irishmen, and Scotchmen, you will find that
they carry with them the high qualities of their
race, which have led the way in civilization, by
spreading the great principle of freedom—freedom in religion and freedom in government—
over the world. Their prosperity has been
brought about by an overruling Providence.
There are many who look more to the creature
than to the Creator; they trust to their own
strength instead of looking to Him who governs
the affairs of men; and if a sparrow cannot fall
to the ground without His notice, il is also
probable that an empire cannot rise without
His aid. May the light of liberty which now
shines over our land long remain to gladden
generations yet unborn! May the flag that
floats over every part of British territory, and
catches the eye of the navigator returning from
every country, which is borne by our ships
upon all the waters of the globe, and which is
known and honored as the flag that is associated with all the glories of our past
history,
let its folds glitter before the eyes of mankind
as the sign of hope and universal freedom.
I have thus expressed a few of my thoughts
on this important subject now under consideration, and if the time has come when all
independence of public opinion must be sacrificed
at the shrine of power, when the people will
sustain no man who dares to be candid, then,
sir, I desire to have no participation in the
administration of public affairs. I can be
much happier and much more profitably
employed in giving my attention to humbler
duties. The right for the people to decide this
question for themselves, is one of those great
political rights of which no one should desire
to deprive them; and I cannot consent, for one
single moment, to abandon any part of their
claims. I hope there is yet independent spirit
in this house, that we shall not be guilty of so
great an outrage as that proposed. Those who
concur in passing Confederation at the present
time, will take upon themselves an awful responsibility; a responsibility for which
their
constituents will call them to a strict account.
This resolution may pass, but if it does, those
who vote for it will lose the confidence, and the
judgment and good sense of a very large
majority of the people. I see that party training is going on; prescriptive spirit
is rising;
every appeal that can be made to human passions is urged, and names not of the most
pleasing kind are freely bestowed upon those
who have the firmness to oppose a change in
the constitution. Sir, names can never effect
principles or change position Ingenuity may
coin them, and effrontry apply them, but the
actual relations of life remain the same,—
therefore let us be faithful to our great trust—
From the battlefields of all the earth upon
which liberty has set up her standard, there
comes to us the cry "be faithful;" from the
crumbled senate halls of nations for ever
passed away, there comes to us an imploring appeal to be faithful to those who put
their confidence in us. But, if Confederation
must pass by a majority in the House, without the consent of a majority of the people
of this country, then I say to my constituents, and also to the country at large,
" thou
canst not say I did it."
292
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
SPEECH OF MR. COFFIN
Mr. COFFIN. — I regret that I am obliged to address the House at this late hour of
the night ; but as we are denied the privilege
of another day's debate, and as the death-knell
of my country is sounding, I do not wish to
give a silent vote. The subject before the
House is one of too great magnitude to be
passed over lightly ; it is a question of greater
magnitude than any that has hitherto been before the Legislature. It is one calculated
to
sweep away our constitution, the dearest rights
of Nova-Scotians as free men ; it is one, sir,
calculated to raise the ire of every one of Nova
Scotia's sons ; it is one that cannot be passed
without ignoring the rights of the electors of
Nova Scotia. Sir, I regret exceedingly that a
resolution was passed in this House in 1864,
authorizing a delegation to consult as to the
propriety of a union of the Maritime Provinces,
for out of that has grown the delegation to
Quebec, and there with closed doors a consultation was held which ended in bartering
away
this fine Province, the people, and the constitution, to Canadian rule. There we have
been
sold, there we have been valued, there the
rights dear to us of governing ourselves, and
of being in ourselves a free, independent and
contented people, were given up ; and when it
is, known through the length and breadth of
the land that this resolution has been passed,
then it is that the indignation of the people
will be aroused to an extent perhaps that will
be calculated to weaken the strong feelings of attachment to their rulers that had
hitherto existed. If this question had been
approached in a way that was fair and honorable by first submitting the whole question
to
the country at the polls, and if it were then
passed by the Legislature there would not
have been the cause of complaint which at present exists. This is indeed a most dangerous
step which is about to be taken; we have a
thinking and intelligent people in Nova Scotia—a people that will not be likely to
tolerate
having their constitution bartered away without their consent, and without having
those
privileges which responsible government was
intended to secure to them. I do not believe
that the Imperial Parliament will ratify this
scheme, if they are made properly acquainted
with the whole transaction and with the facts
which bear upon the case. Loyalty to the
Crown has been spoken of. Sir, we pretend
to foster that feeling, whilst at the same time
a few men who now govern the country—who
are expected to govern the people according to
their well understood wishes, and who obtained place and power at the polls in 1863
under the cry of retrenchment, but who have so
managed the public affairs as to gain for themselves, as they well know, the withering
rebuke of seven-eighths of the people, to cap the
climax—without submitting the measure to
the people—they urge us to pass a resolution
to deprive our beloved country of its Constitution. Sir, I would ask can language
be employed sufficiently strong to convey the disapproval of this act? I have heard
strong language made use of here at times; I heard only
the other day the Prov. Secretary make use of
the word " traitor" to another hon gentleman
across the floor of this house. Sir, I will not
make use of that term, but I am at a loss for
language sufficiently strong and severe without doing so. What can be said of the
men
who, in the face of the fact of nine-tenths of
the people of this Province being decidedly
adverse to the passage of this resolution, propose to sweep away our constitution
and make
us subservient to the rule of Canadian Statesmen, in whose wisdom for governing a
country
we have but little faith, and from whom we
are severed for six months of the year as to any
mode of travelling over British territory by
land, and entirely shut out by sea, and for the
other six months we have very indifferent communication. It is said we are to have
the Intercolonial Railway. This may be the case in
the course of time, but the Intercolonial Railway should have preceded the Union of
the
Colonies. Why, sir, suppose a war was to
break out between the United States and G.
Britain, and the General Parliament had to be
convened in winter months at Ottawa, how
are we to reach there? Would it be over the
ice. or on snow shoes over land? Sir, had the
public men of Canada been true to their interests, and the Colonial Secretaries of
England
been true to their engagements, we should
long before this have had the railway built.—
Can Canadians or Nova Scotians expect to
build that railway on terms made easier as to
finances than by the offers made by the British Government in 1862, to which the Canadians
refused to accede? If they had acceded, the
road might now have been built. The reason
for Canada not accepting the offers then made
may have been that they expected at some
future day to use that work as a lever by
which to force the Maritime Provinces into a
union; and, sir may we not well believe that
they have accomplished the end in view? They
must be famous for their powers of persuasion
or they never could have buttered the delegation from this Province so smoothly as
to get
them to sign that document at Quebec. I believe it was at the last great dinner at
Montreal that the iniquitous scheme was completed—a scheme so unjust to the people
of this
Province—a scheme by which the country and
the Constitution they loved so well have been
most grossly bartered away—and a scheme
that the government of this Province will not,
nay, sir, dare not, submit to the people at the
polls. But it may be said by the friends of
this measure that the scheme is to be altered,
they having met the propositions of the hon
gentleman from Richmond, but does not every
one know that this is a farce, a delusion? Does
not every one know that that proposition was
known to the government long before it was
announced on the floors of this house? The
resolution is that the British Government shall
arbitrate between contending parties, when
the British Government have already declared
in favor of the Quebec scheme, and, I believe,
without looking minutely into the matter; but
having passed on the Quebec scheme already,
they will not retract;—and the government of
Nova Scotia having already pledged themselves over and over again to the Quebec
scheme, does any one suppose that they will
compromise themselves by going as a delegation to England to persuade the British
Government to make alterations which
they well know Canada will not agree to.
They would be fools if they did, seeing the
way in which this resolution passed this house,
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
293
if it does pass. Do you wish to heap insult
upon injury by trying to delude the people of
this country with such a resolution? Sir, I say
again do you wish to insult the common intelligence of Nova Scotians? Several questions
that should be answered by the promoters of
this scheme are these: Did not the delegation
at Quebec sit in secret? Did they not conclude that Quebec scheme with closed doors?
Was it not understood by all the parties then
that the terms of the scheme were not to be
disclosed until all the delegates should return?
Did not the Canadian delegates proceed post
haste to England, there to implore the Secretary for the Colonies to aid their propositions?
And was it not urged at the Colonial Secretary's office nearly as soon as in Temperance
Hall? Sir, I do not wonder that the Canadians should with such haste endeavour to
excite the sympathies of the British government in favour of this scheme when they
had
made a bargain so much to their own advantage. I believe that could the disadvantages
that this involves to Nova Scotia have been
shewn to the British government they could
not have been so blind to our interests as to
favour such a scheme; but all this will be represented to the British government.
It is
not impossible nor unlikely that this may yet
be a question of greater moment in the Parliament of England than may now be imagined,
and when it is known that this Quebec scheme
is so distasteful to the people of this province;
when the injustice of the case comes to be
known, and the discontent and strife that will
be engendered thereby, I feel some hope that
the British government will pause before they
pass an act to make this resolution become the
law of the land. I presume that the British
government will have a detailed account of
the whole scheme; a pounds shillings and
pence version of the whole affair; a matter of
fact proposition for them to solve; and when
they do know, as I believe they do not know,
that Nova Scotia must lose at least $200,000 a
year by the arrangement, which they will
have to make up by direct taxation—and that
that will be a mode of raising money—that
will be likely to create a very bad feeling and
perhaps almost a revolution in the country,
they will pause before they pass the act. But,
sir, in making use of this language, I am quite
aware that I shall be styled by the promoters
of this infamous scheme an annexationist; but
this I deny, and I claim to possess as loyal
feelings to my beloved Queen as any man in
this assembly. and it is with feelings loyal to
the crown of Great Britain that I warn you
now of the danger there is of creating a feeling
of hostility to the Government of Britain by
the passage of this act. The feelings of the
people of England have been quoted here by
the hon. Attorney General, and the applause he
received at the Manchester dinner when introduced as one of the union delegates. But,
sir,
did the honorable Attorney General ask
them their views of our relation to England under the union? If he had they would
have told him that united we would no
longer be an expense to England for protection. And this is the general impression
of
the people of England. I was in England last
winter, and in Manchester, and was in conversation with gentlemen there of high standing,
some of the Manchester school, and found that
this was the general idea that these Provinces
united would no longer be a burthen to the
people of England for protection, and I found
this to be the idea of a very large proportion
of the people there with whom I came in contact, but I do not mean to say that the
British
government entertain that idea. Now, sir,
having kept the house so long at this late
hour I will not prolong my remarks, but should
have done so if time had been allowed. I feel
that I am doing my duty to Nova Scotia, as
my native land, to the people I am here to
represent, and to myself, by voting against the
resolution laid on the table by the hon. Prov.
Secy., and for the amendment adored by the
hon. and learned gentleman from Guysboro.
REMARKS OF MR. HATFIELD.
Mr. HATFIELD said:—I feel that the duty
devolves upon me of expressing my views on
this resolution. I may state that until this
evening no one has been informed of the way
in which I intend to vote; when meetings
were held at Yarmouth and Argyle I said I
would not give a decided opinion until the legislature met, and the pros and cons
of the
question laid before us. I have come here, I
have heard speeches upon both sides, and have
made up my mind to vote against the resolution which the government have introduced.
I
feel that the duty which I owe to my constituency, and that duty is not a small one,
requires
that I should take this action. Since coming
to this house I have supported the government
almost to a vote, sometimes with a disregard
of my personal position, but on this measure I
will do what is right irrespctive of political
feelings and with a determination to stand or
fall by the course which I pursue. I have frequently felt diffident in addressing
the house,
feeling that I was a young member and unaccustomed to public speaking, in comparrison
with some gentlemen who frequently address
us, but to-night I stand firm in the conviction
that the course I am taking is one that becomes my position. We find that out of the
ten or eleven lawyers who have seats in this
house, nine are in favor of the scheme, and
what is their object unless it be personal aggrandisement? To-night we have seen a
gentleman sitting here, and not revealing even to
his own colleagues that he had " paired off"
with another member and did not intend to
vote on the division. That certainly looks suspicious, and has convinced me that all
the circumstances connected with the transaction
have not been revealed. I have made these
few remarks without preparation, and would
not have spoken to-night if the Prov. Secretary had not forced the division.
REMARKS OF DR. BROWN.
Dr. BROWN said :—At this hour of the night,
Mr. Speaker, and fatigued as I am by a long
journey, it is not possible for me to collect my
thoughts sufficiently to make a two hours
speech on this all-important subject, I shall
therefore content myself with a few remarks
directed to one or two points only. I should
not object to the resolution before the house,
provided the people were allowed to decide
the question. It is not impossible, though I
confess I cannot see it, that Union with
Canada may be ultimately beneficial to
the country. If so, the people in process of
294
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
time would gradually alter their tone, and at
last willingly adopt the change.
But I ask, sir, where is the necessity for this
indecent haste? Haste in a two-fold sense.
Haste, not only in cramming this measure
down the people's throats without their consent
and against the will of a vast majority, but
haste in bringing this debate to a close to-night,
and thus stifling the voice of free discussion.
Nothing can be more arbitrary than the conduct of the government. They can fritter
away days and weeks on useless and frivolous matters, but on the great question, whether
Nova Scotia shall retain her rights and liberties—her very existence, the Provincial
Sec'y
denies us an hour. I ask, sir, where is the
necessity for action? Why not remain as we
are? What is the emergency? Is it, because,
as the Provincial Secretary has admitted, the
government and union party in this house are
afraid to hear the voice of the people? I thank
the Pro. Secy. for the admission—it is candid,
ande xplains his position. The emergency, Mr.
Speaker, is not the emergency of the people,
it is the emergency of the rulers of the people.
Why is it that they will not refer this measure,
this most momentous of all measures that ever
came before this Legislature, to the people
whom it most concerns? simply because they
dare not. Do you suppose, sir, can any man
imagine, if the government had a ghost of a
chance they would hesitate to appeal to the
hustings? The voice of the people and the
voice of their representatives are stifled, because they know it is against them.
Now, sir,
this act may be perpetrated, the rights
of the people of Nova Scotia may be
trampled on, and ignored, but I apprehend this
will not be the end of the contest. The voice of
the people though silenced for the present will
make itself heard. I mistake much if the free
and intelligent people of Nova Scotia will
quietly submit to be crushed and overridden—
I mistake much if the honest and enlightened
farmers of Kings County will quietly submit
to it. And when I speak of Kings County I
mean not only South Kings, which I have the
honor to represent, but North Kings which is,
I have every reason to know, equally strong in
its condemnation of this measure. I do not
hesitate to declare it as my opinion in the presence of the members for North Kings
that
three-fourths of the electors of that district are
opposed to it, and are only waiting for an opportunity to sweep it and its authors
away together. My learned friend from North Kings,
Dr. Hamilton, says he has learned from a correspondent in Kings that Mr. Howe's letters
have had the effect of cementing the Conservatives in that county. I agree with him
that
the minds of all parties, With few exceptions,
concur in one point—in denouncing union with
Canada. I have just returned from a visit
home, and find the anti-union feeling stronger
than ever.
Several of my pro-confederate neighbours
said to me, they would like confederation but
not without the test of the people's approval.—
Dr. Hamilton also disputes the reported issue
of the Canning meeting, now I have it from
the most reliable authority, authority that the
learned member himself will not question,
that against one of the resolutions carried, there
was but one vote, and against the other only
three or four. Canning is in the Doctor's im
mediate vicinity and a large number of his
constituents reside there. The learned member referred also to his provable retirement
from public life. I advise him to do so by all
means. He certainly could not do a more prudent thing. I should be glad also to hear
my
friend and colleague Mr. Bill give his opinion
on the resolutions before the house. On a
question of such transcendant proportions and
magnitude, a question truly of life and death,
no man should be content with giving a silent
vote. I conclude by imploring the house to
let the people he heard at the polls.
DR. HAMILTON:—My observations merely referred to North Kings, I did not refer to South
Kings, and I am prepared to-morrow to resign
my seat, if Dr. Brown will contest it with me.
With regard to the meeting at Canning. I have
four letters in my pocket referring to it; one
says there were sixty persons present; another
says eighty; another says that the number was
one hundred, and a good many of them were
boys. I should like to ask Dr. Brown who instigated the meeting? I think the suggestion
came from a gentleman not far from me. As
to South Kings, the hon. member knows that I
have stood at the polling places pleading for
him before he chose to change sides. I have in
my possession a letter from one of the first men
in King's, and he says he hopes the House will
pass Confederation; another letter is from a
person who says he would like to see the American flag floating over the Province,
and perhaps
such sentiments as his had a good deal to do
with the Canning meeting.
DR. BROWN :—I accept the learned member's
challenge to meet him at North King's. It will
give me great pleasure to vacate my seat tomorrow, if he will do the some for that
purpose. It will be a pleasant and innocent way
for him to learn the opinion of his constituents.
I don't know who the learned member's correspondents are. D. R. Daton, Esq. was mine,
and the Doctor himself will agree with me that
this gentleman is entitled to credit and respect.
I did not, as he insinuates, suggest the meeting
at Canning—in that my learned friend has only
made a bad guess.
Mr. KILLAM : —It is well known, as was admitted by the Pro. Sec. himself, that the government
do not possess the confidence of the
country and what then is our position? The
government, in the face of this fact, bring forward a measure to change our entire
constitution, and call upon members to support them.
What would the leader of the House of Commons do if he were obligod to make such an
admission ? The observations of some gentlemen who have spoken to-night I think will
give
the government a lesson that cannot soon be
forgotten.
Mr. MCKAY said :—I intend to adopt a different course from that pursued by my colleague
on this question, and I will state a few of the
reasons which influence me Last winter I was
opposed to the Quebec scheme; this session :
resolution has been introduced to modify that
scheme in its details. If a change has become
necessary for our security. let us form our in
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
295
stitutions by our own judgment. and not by the
direction of the neighboring Republic. One
of the members for Yarmoutb admitted that
nine-tenths of the people of that county are in
favour of annexation,—these are opinions which
no loyalist can endorse. Another gentleman
taking a prominent stand in this discussion has
made remarks concerning our Lieut Governor
which I cannot endorse. I have received some
letters from my constituents, asking me to support the resolution, and I have received
none
to the contrary.
Mr. KILLAM replied that his colleague, Mr
Townsend, had merely intimated that a majority of the people of Yarmouth preferred
annexation to Confederation.
Mr. LOCKE said that in the session of 1862
the Atty. General applied the phrase "dumb
logs" to gentlemen whom he opposed,—that
expression could be very appropriately applied
to gentlemen on the government side, who allowed the speeches of gentlemen opposed
to
the resolution to pass unanswered.
Hon. ATTY GEN said that the gentlemen to
whom that phrase was applied in 1862, bore it
pretty easily, and he presumed that his friends
could do the same on this occasion.
The question was then taken upon Mr S.
Campbell's amendment, which was negatived,
eighteen voting for it and thirty-one against it
For the amendment—Messrs. Killam, Hebb,
Hatfield, Balcom, Townsend, Lawrence, Moore,
Robertson. Locke, S. Campbell, Blanchard,
McLelan, Ross, King, Ray, Brown, Coffin and
Annand
Against :—Messrs. Bill, Hill, C. J. Campbell,
Shannon, D Fraser, Allison, Jno Campbell,
Whitman, Pryor, Longley, Parker, Heffernan.
Kaulback, McKay, Jost, Donkin, Bourinot,
Tobin, Miller, McDonnell, McKinnon. Robicheau, McFarlane, Prov Sec., Atty. General,
Blanchard, Cowie, Hamilton, Colin Campbell,
Smith and Archibald.
The resolution passed 31 to 19, Mr. J, Fraser
voting with the minority.
The House adjourned.
Cet individu a participé aux :
