PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
54
TUESDAY, May 8.
[...]
The adjourned debate on the subject of Confederation was resumed at the hour of 5
o'clock in the afternoon, and kept up with
much interest till after midnight.
Hon. Sol. General opened the debate by resuming his speech
which he had commenced in the forenoon, and spoke for nearly two
hours.
He was followed by the Hon. Mr. Coles, who also spoke at great
length.
During the debate on that great and momentous question, a
most every hon. member of the House expressed his views on the
subject, all of whom were present excepting the Hon. Colonial
Secretary, absent from the Island on the Delegation to Brazil, the
West Indian Islands, and Mexico.
Hon. Mr. Cole, in the course of debate, remarked that had he
been consulted in framing the Resolutions, he would have suggested
an alteration in that which stated, that any Federal Union of the
British Provinces which would include Prince Edward Island could
ever be accomplished upon terms that would prove advantageous to
the best interests of the latter; but although that Resolution was
not worded exactly as he would like to see it, yet, from the statements of one of
the leaders of the Government in Canada, Mr.
Cartier, to the effect, that the Resolutions at the Quebec Conference in 1864 should
not be altered; and also statements published
in Quebec reflecting the views of the Government of that country
on the question of Union, to the effect, that should England favor
the Resolutions of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, to the
prejudice of the Quebec Scheme, she could not hold Canada against
her will. With such statements as these before him, he felt bound
to support the Resolutions, as submitted by the Hon. Leader of the
Government, as there appeared to be no hope of getting any modification of the Quebec
Report.
Mr. Sinclair, while expressing himself pleased with the Resolutions submitted against
Confederation, thought the language in the
second Resolution almost too strong. He believed terms could be
given which would justify P. E. Island in going into a Federal
Union, but, at the same time, he firmly believed such terms never
would be given to this Colony.
Mr. Brecken also said, in his speech, that he would not go so far
as to say that a Union of the Colonies, on terms advantageous to P.
E. Island, was a matter of impossibility; but from the present construction of the
question, as advocated by the supporters of the Quebec Report, he felt it his duty
to give the resolutions in question his
hearty support.
Hon. Leader of the Government admitted that the paragraph in
question was worded in very strong terms, and had he consulted his
own individual views on that point, he would have modified it.
Last year he admitted the principles of a Union in the abstract;
and he still thought that terms might be proposed which would be
advantageous to this Island; but such terms could not be had, and
in consequence of the very extraordinary course pursued with regard to this question
in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, it behoved
us to resist everything in the shape of a Union, lest we might be
committcd to the Quebec scheme. He believed nineteen out of
every twenty of the people of this Island were opposed to Union at
any kind with Canada. He, therefore, conceived it to be his duty
in deference to their wishes, and to secure a strong vote in this
House; to pursue the course he had done. At the same time, he
must say, expressing his own opinion, he wished the second Resolution were struck
out.
The question was then put on the Hon. Mr. Whelan's Resolutions
in amendment to the Resolutions submitted by the Hon. Leader of
the Government, and negatived on the following division:—
For Hon. Mr. Whelan's amendment—Hons. E. Whelan Col.
Gray, Sol. General, Davies, Kaye Messrs. McLennan, and Green—7.
Against it—Hons. J. C. Pope, the Speaker, Longworth, Coles,
Warburton, Thornrton. Hensley, Kelly, Laird, McEachen; Messrs.
Howat, Brecken, Duncan, Haslain, Ramsay, Montgomery, Howlan,
Conroy, Sutherland, Walker, Sinclair—21.
The Resolutions of the Hon. Leader of the Government were accordingly reported to
the House agreed to.
Mr. Sinclair then submitted the following Resolution:—
Resolved, That inasmuch as the will be a generrl election this
summer, it is, therefore, inexpedient for the Government to appoint
any farther delegations on the subject of Colonial Union or Confederation, or to take
any action calculated to commit the people of this
Colony to any scheme of Union until authorized by the people and
sanctioned by their Representatives, returned at said general Election."
The supporters of the Government on that question contended that
the above Resolution was uncalled for, inasmuch as hon. members
of the Executive, in their places on the floor of that House, had
during the debate just ended, declared that the Government would
take no action whatever on the subject, and that therefore it would
be unfair to throw a doubt on their expressed declaration.
The supporters of the resolution contended that their object was
to arm the Government against making any concessions that might
lead to the appointment of any delegation tending to commit the
people of the Colony to any measure not sanctioned by their Representatives.
After considerable debate on the subject, the question was put
and the Resolution negatived on the following division, viz:—
For Mr. Sinclair's Resolution—Hons. Messrs. Coles, Laird War- burton, Hensley, Thornton,
Kelly, Messrs. Sinclair, Howlan, Howat,
Walker, Sutherland, Conroy, —12.
Against it— Hons. J. C. Pobe. Col. Gray, Sol. General, Whelan,
Kaye, Longworth, Davies, McEachen, Messrs. Duncan, Yeo, Has- lam, Montgomery, Ramsay,
McLennan, Green, Brecken—16.
House adjourned.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
110
TUESDAY, 8th May, 1866.
House in Committee of the whole on Despatches. Â Mr.
JOHN YEO in the Chair.
Mr. CONROY. Sir, I have very little to say in addition to what I said upon the question last
Session. I am
decidedly opposed to Confederation. I am quite satisfied
to remain as we are, and to retain the management of our
own affairs. I have considered the question with all the
ability and attention I could bring to bear upon it, and l
have failed to discover any advantage which would acrue to
us through a Federal Union with Canada. But whilst I
am persuaded that We should reap no advantaues from it, I
am convinced that, in almost every particular, it would be
highly injurious, if not absolutely ruinous to us. According to the Quebec Scheme,
we would have to give up our
revenue, however great its amount, in exchange for ÂŁ30,000
or ÂŁ40,000 per annum; and we would have to surrender to
strangers the power to raise our duties of impact and excise to any amount they chose.
We would be allowed to
retain our local Legislature; but of what service would the
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
111
machinery of legislature be to us, without the power to appropriate our revenue for
our own immediate benefit? A
great part of the allowance of ÂŁ30,000 or ÂŁ40,000 a year
would be required to keep up the useless parapharnalia of
a local Government and local Legislature. All that was
said last night upon the subject, was merely a repetition of
what was urged for and against the Union last Session. I
have myself noting to advance against it; and I will,
therefore, say no more but that I heartily support the Resolutions submitted by the
Hon. the Leader of the Government, although I must admit I see nothing objectionable
in
the Resolution submitted, in amendment, but my hon. friend
the member for St. Peter's (Mr. Whelan).
Hon. COL. GRAY apologized for his absence from the
House for the last two or three days; which, he explained,
had been occasioned by indisposition. The Resolutions which
had been submitted by the Hon. the Leader of the Government, he presumed he had before
him in the Legislative
Summary; but he was not exactly aware of the purport of
the amendment which, it seemed, had been subitted thereto. He would, therefore, feel
obliged by the Chairman's
reading it for his information.
The Chairman having, in compliance with the request of
the hon and gallant Colonel, read the amendment submitted
by the Hon. Mr. Whelan, he—the Hon Col. Gray spoke as
follows: I will say I am glad that I have now, in my place,
an opportunity to give my opinion upon the Resolutions
submitted by the Hon. the Leader of the Government. It
appears to me that he House in saying,-as, by the words
of the second of those Resolutions, they are made to do,—
"That they cannot admit that a Federal Union of the North
American Provinces and Colonies, which would include
Prince Edward Island, could ever be accomplished upon
terms that would prove advantageous to the interests and
well-being of the people of this Island." are in a mose arrogant, and almost impious
manner, assuming to themselves
two of the grand attributes of the Deity—prescience and
omniscience. I must say I would be very sorry to have my
name, as a supporter of such a Resolution, recorded for
transmission to posterity. I do not look for posthumous
fame; and I regard popular applause as little, perhaps, as
most public men; but I regard my own conscience, and
nothing, I trust, will ever induce me to give my sanction or
concurrence to any act, project, or declaration, which,
through a cool and dispassionate exercise of my judgement, I
cannot conscientiously approve. I regard my own conscience
much more than any thought of future fame or prospect of
immediate popular applause. As a parliamentary representative of the people, I endeavour
to act in accordance
with its dictates. On every public question which comes
before the Assembly, I claim the right to exercise my conscientious judgement, independently
of all party connexion or
considerations; and that right I not only, most willingly
concede to every other member of the House, but I most
sincerely desire that, on every occasion, whatever the nature
of the question at issue may be, he may freely exercise it.
The hon. member from Cascumpeque (Mr. Conroy) has very
properly said, if I understood him aright, that nothing more
than was enunciated upon the question of Federal Union, in
the last Session, could now be advanced concerning it. In
the last of the Resolutions against the Union, agreed to by
the majority of this hon. House, last session, it is said,
"That this House disagrees to the recommendations of the
Quebec Convention; and, on the part of Prince Edward
Island, emphatically declines a Union, which, after a serious
and careful consideration, it believes would prove politically,
commercially, and financially disastrous to the rights and
interests of its people." This, surely, was language strong
enough; and its simple re-affirmance now, without the most
absurd and censurable assumption of the Divine attributes
of prescience and omniscience, ought to have fully satisfied
the opponents of Confederation in this House. On my
return from Canada in 1864, I publicly declared that, in
my opinion, simple justice to the people demanded that no
further action, either executive or legislative, should be
taken, either for or against the projected Union, until after
they should have had an opportunity to pronounce concerning it at the hustings. That
was my opinion then; and
it is still my opinion; and, I, therefore, hold that this House
is not in a position to pronounce constitutionally concerning
the matter. Whether the people as yet rightly comprehend
the question in all its features, it is not for me to determine.
By my individual opinion is that they have not yet, through
the labours of any competent and impartial instructers, been
enabled to arrive at that full understanding of it, to which,
before they can wisely conclude concerning it, it is necessary
they should attain. So vast a subject has never before been
submitted to their consideration; no question so likely to
arouse their prejudices, and, with reference to which, there
has been so great a probability to misconceptions on their
part, has ever before been propounded to them for solution.
They are called upon to deal with a matter of such gravity
and importance, as may, according to their decision concerning it, either settle or
unsettle the whole balance of our
Constitution; and, therefore, it seems to me to be absolutely
necessary that, before they form a final judgement upon it,
they should be enabled to understand the measure in all its
bearings, and have ability to look upon it with an enlarged
and comprehensive view. I do not see, however, that any
remarks made in this House, at this time, can in any way
alter the state of the question; nor can I perceive that—
uninstructed, as we are, by our constituents with regard to it—we can with any regard
to constitutional propriety, take action upon it. Such being my view of
the present state of the question, it is only in consequence of the unexampled features
of the Resolutions
which have been submitted by the Hon. the Leader of the
Government, and which I apprehend will be sustained and
carried by a majority of the House, that i have risen to offer
any remarks upon the subject. The Resolution which asserts
that "this House cannot admit that a Federal Union of the
North American Provinces and Colonies, which would include Prince Edward Island, could
ever be accomplished
upon terms that would prove advantageous to the interests
and well-being of the people of this Island;" shuts out every
member who shall agree to it from every again entertaining
the question, how changed soever, and how much more
favourable soever may be the terms upon which acceptance
of Confederation may be required of the Colony. Nothing
can be more preposterous than such a Resolution. We know
not what changes even a single day may bring forth. And
yet, as if all the events of futurity were laid open to our
view, we are called upon to decide against the projected
Union of these Provinces upon anyterms. We talk of this
Island being cut off and separated, by an immovable barrier
of ice from the neighbouring Provinces. Science and art
may yet overcome the obstruction of that barrier. An unobstructed intercourse and
communication with the Mainland,
by properly fitted Steam-propellers may yet be secured to us in
the winter season. What is the barrier which Britons cannot overleap? But, if the
Island is to be bound by the Resolutions in question, it will indeed by more effectually
cut
off and separated from neighbouring Provinces, and-denied
for ever all participation in the growing strength, wealth, and
and prosperity of the Confederated Provinces- it will have
little prospect for the future beyond a dwarfed existence, or
ultimate absorption into the neighbouring Republic. The
great burthen of all the speeches which have been delivered
in the Island, both in this House and out of it, against
Confederation has been that the terms offered to us
are not commensurate with our wants or such as our
exceptional position demands that they should be
that they are not sufficiently favorable. But now, by
these Resolutions, you shut yourselves out from the
acceptance of anyterms which may be offered, however
favourable they may be. In declaring that a Union of these
Provinces can neverbe ffected on terms favourable to
Prince Edward Island, you arrogate to yourselves the power
of Omniscience. The hon. and gallant Colonel, then ridiculed the idea which had been
put forth by some anti-con
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
112
federates, that, in the event of the Federation's taking
place, and Canada's being imided by Fenian marauders or
any other enemy, we would be called upon to send tip our
Militia or Volunteers to assist. the Canadians to defend
themselves. What probability, he asked, was there that a
Province which, in obedience to a call to arms, could, within 24 hours, have an army
of 150,000 well disciplined men,
fully equipped, and ready to encounter whatever foe might
menace or ass-ail them, and which, besides, had at its disposal a surplus revenue
of one million dollars, should stand
in need of any direct aid, either of men or money from
Prince Edward Island? Bankrupt Canada! The idea was
most preposterous. The hon. member then significantly
hinted to the Committee the very great probability that
their determination to remain out of the Union. in opposition to the wishes of the
Home Government, might prove
a cause of such irritation as they might, when too late, have
reason to repent their having provoked. As a proof that
he had never centemplated the forcing of the Quebec Scheme
upon the people against their will, he stated that after his
return from Canada, in 1864, he had, at a public meeting of
his constituents, at Belfast, told them that the question of
Confederation. so far as it was intended to apply to Prince
Edward Island, was one for the people—and for the people
alone—to decide. The Delegates had drawn up a Report,
embracing a scheme of Union; but the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject
it as they themselves should
think best. Because I, as one of the island Delegates, assented to that Scheme I have
been accused of having sold
my country. and been stigmatized by the name of traitor,
Even a clergyman—I will not say of what denomination—
has declared that he had been told that I had been bribed
to give my assent to that Scheme. When that rather amusing charge was brought against
me, it was brought equally
against the other Delegates from Prince Edward Island.
for we all assented to the Quebec Report, and the Hon.
the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr, Coles), who was one
of us, when—after the Conference had terminated—publicly
speaking of the Report, at the Dejeuner, at Ottawa, said:
" He thought they (the Delegates) had reason to congratulate themselves upon the labours
of the Conference. That
thirty-three men, representing the various political Opinions
of six different Provinces, could have assembled so and amalgamated their opinions
as to agree upon a Constitution Suited
for that great Confederation, was something, he believed,
the Delegates were worthy of the position they held. He
said this, although there was no man more disappointed than
himself with respect to some parts of that constitution; but,
by mutual concessions, they had arrived at a result which they
could all agree in supporting and submitting to the people; for
he held that it must be submitted to the people. They could
not force it on the people; they must endeavour to shew them
that it was for their benefit, and thus induce them to accept
it." The foul charge of his having been bribed to agree to
the Report—a Report which was agreed to by all the Delegates—must apply equally to
all the other Island Delegates;
but a charge so scandalous was one which they with him,
would trample under foot, By a part of the Island press, it
had been said that he and his brother Delegates who were
advocates of the complete Federation of these Provinces were
prepared to thrust it down the threats of the people. He,
on the contrary,—and he wished it to go forth to the public—
took the very earliest opportunity which presented itself, to
publish in the papers that, in his opinion, it would be most unjust to the people
to take any action with respect to the Quebec Scheme, until it should have been fairly
put to them at
the Hustings. The people have not had it before them, and
therefore what we may say now can be but of little avail.
This is the last Session of the House; and, at the ensuing
General Election, every candidate for the suffrages of the peo
ple will have an opportunity of declaring his sentiments concerning the Confederation
Scheme; and such as shall be
elected will take their seats in the Assembly duly instructed
how they are to vote concerning it. If I be again returned
to this House—I shall, according to the instructions of my
constituents, know how to comport myself with respect to
that momentous question. As to the appointment of Delegates to a London Convention,
I do not see how His Excel
lency the Lieutenant Governor, as the question now stands
would dare to make such an appointment. Before any step
of that kind can be constitutionally taken, there must be an
appeal to the people; and that appeal must be first respondedÂ
to by no approval of Confederation views. I believe there are
members on the flor of the House who, although adverse to
the terms of the Quebec Scheme, would yet willingly vote
for a reconsideration of it. I believve the Hon. the
Leader of the Opposition is not opposed to a Federal
Union of all the Provinces; but he wants better terms
than those offered to us by the Quebec Scheme. He wants
the very best terms which it may be possible for us to
obtain; and so do I. His opposition to the Quebec Scheme
is based upon his conviction that the terms which it accords
us are not sufficiently favorable to our interests—I am not
much in the habit of looking to members in opposition for
amendments to Resolutions submitted from this side of the
House. I was returned to support the Conservative party;
and, in good faith, I have fought with them, and done my
duty in every conflict which they have had with the Opposition. In the support of
any particular policy or measure to
which the Conservatives have been pledged, I have never
flinched. This, however, is the lost Session of this House
and with it my immediate connexion with the Conservative;
will cease. At the ensuing General Election, if I offer myself again as a Candidate
for a seat in the Assembly; I will
not do so either as a Conservative or as a Liberal and, if elected
I will not pledge myself to support either party. I will reserve
to myself the privilege of judging for myself, independently
of all party consideration . The present question is not a
Government question; but a free and open one; and, therefore, in voting, as I shall
do, for the amendment submitted
by a member of the Opposition—the hon. member for St.
Peter's (Hon. Mr. Whelan)—l shall not be forsaking my
party. The good sense and moderation of that amendment,
especially when contrasted with the assumption, at once
arrogant and fatuous of the Resolutions to which it is opposed, so recommend it to
my judgment and sense of propriety,
that I can have no hesitation in voting for it. In sneaking
against the Resolution submitted by the Hon. Premier, I have
done soon account of their binding character. As to the
Resolutions of amendment, I do not see how any member, on
either side of the House, whatever his opinions concerning
the Quebec Scheme may be, can object to it. But, by the
other, we are called upon to exclude ourselves for over from a
Confederation which, in all probability, is destined to become one of the greatest
nations on the earth. What! are
we going to ostracise ourselves from the community of our
Sister Provinces? Are we going to stand alone to become the
resort of strugglers, and a nest of hornets in the sides of the
Confederation? Do we suppose that Her Majesty's Government will allow such a political
solecism? Will not our declared hostility to any scheme of Union which will include
Prince Edward Island, in opposition to the well considered
and truly parental desire of the Government of Great Britain,
be very likely so far to exasperate them, as to cause them to
legislate us into the Confederation even against our will? As to
the Hon. the Leader of the Government, I have the highest respect for him, both politically
and socially; and although voting against
the Resolutions submitted by him, I am not voting against the Government of which
he is the Leader. The Confederation question is
not a Government one [Hon. Mr. Coles. It should be, though.] I
will not say whether the questions might or might not have been made
a Government question. A Government question, however, it could
not have been made constitutionally without an appeal to the people.
But I will ask how can the hon. the Leader of the Government now
tell that his own or other constituencies are at present opposed to
Confederation, even although he may have had reason to believe they
were so at the time of the last general election. Events of a most
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
113
in some districts they who were formerly opposed to Confederation,
may now be in favor of it. The great objection has been to the terms
offered us by the Quebec Scheme; but not, I believe, generally to
Federation on any terms. Thinking men who, at first, were opposed
to it may now take another view of it; and recognise the possibility
of our obtaining better terms, if, through a constitutional channel,
we should be wise enough to seek them. In accepting the Premier's
Resolutions, the Committee will be blindly committing themselves to
a rejection of they know not what. Not a member of the Committee
knows how the Quebec Scheme of Confederation may yet be modified;
and, therefore, I say every member who may now vote in favor of those
Resolutions, may afterwards find that, by having done so, he has
bound himself to reject terms of Union, which, in his own judgment,
be is forced to admit could not, if accepted, fail to be for the lasting
benefit and welfare of the country! Can anything be more absurd
than such a course as this? To bind ourselves down to reject terms
of Federation which, perhaps, may be of so favorable a character, and
so advantageous to us, that, if accepted, they would, in a manner,
pour down showers of gold upon us! I cannot see the soundness of
the spirit in which these Resolutions have been conceived; and I fear
the acceptance of them, by the Committee, may be so far exasperate the
Home Government, that we may have much reason to regret the determination which they
express. The hon. and gallant Colonel, then,
—referring to the time when, not long since, he had the honor to fill
the post of President of the Executive Council, and to the part,
which, with the concurrence of his hon. colleagues therein, he then
took with a view to the accomplishment of a Federation of the whole
of the British North American Provinces and Colonies, —said, he
hoped that, not only such of those hon. gentlemen as still agreed with
him in opinion as to the desirability of such Federation, but also
such of them as now differed with him, on that subject, would kindly
bear with his free and independent expression of his sentiments concerning it and
the Hon. Premier's Resolutions then before the Committee; and that although, as respected
those Resolutions, be stood
forward politically opposed to some hon. gentlemen, of whom, not
long since, he was a colleague in the Government, he should not, on
that account, bare any reason to believe that he could not still
socially look upon them as his friends. The Government of Great
Britain, continued the hon. gentleman, had ever been truly parental
to this Island as well as to our sister Provinces, and our opposition
to what the Imperial Government were thoroughly convinced would
be our lasting benefit, could not be viewed, by them, in any other
light than that of a most ungrateful return for benefits and privileges, which Great
Britain had most abundantly and generously
showered upon us; and we could not, therefore, reasonably expect
that she would submit to be thwarted, by that ungrateful opposition,
with respect to so grand a scheme as the Confederation of the British
North American Provinces—the inauguration of another great power
in the world. The Hon. and gallant Colonel—after again expressing a gear that the
determined rejection of the Confederation upon any
terms, by the House, would be so exasperate the Imperial Government as
to cause them to determine concerning us, as respected Confederation, according to
the practice of resolute parents when necessitated
to enforce submission on the part of refractory and disobedient children—concluded
by saying he gave his hearty support to the Resolution of amendment submitted by the
hon. member for St. Peter's
(Hon. Mr. Whelan.)
Hon. Mr. McEACHEN. It appeared from the great
sensitiveness of some hon. members on the subject of bribery, that only to hint the
possibility of their being accessible
to the influence of bribes, was a crime almost as gross as
blasphemy. But we knew that no man was infallible; and
that traitors had been found in higher circles than any in
which those hon. but sensitive gentlemen had ever moved
in, or were likely ever to move in. The hon. member who
had spoken last had ridiculed the idea of Canada, with her
army of 150,000 disciplined men being saved through the
aid of little Prince Edward Island; but we had read of a
lion's having been saved by a mouse. It was crouching
and cowardly to accept the idea that Great Britain would
ever force us into Confederation against our will. What
reasons could Mr. Cardwell have to assign for so arbitrary
a step? We were not disloyal, we were not traitors. They
terms of the Quebec Scheme were unjust to us in every
point of view—most glaringly so in a financial one—but the
wrong done to us in that respect, would be light indeed
when compared with the loss of our liberty—the loss of the
power to regulate our own affairs.
Hon. Mr. COLES denied that he had ever agreed to the
Quebec Scheme, and declared that when he found that,
financially, it was impossible to obtain justice for Prince
Edward Island, he told the Conference that they had better
leave us out of the Scheme altogether. The hon. gentleman then argued that they only
means by which we could
escape being dragged into the Union, was positively to declare that we would not enter
into it upon any terms.
Unless we declared ourselves altogether hostile to the
Scheme, we would be dragged in. It was true that the
Home Government had not endeavoured to compel our acceptance of the Scheme by threats
of compulsion. Although we are the smallest o the Provinces, Mr. Cardwell
knows better than to do that. Let us, then, decidedly take
our stand against our being included in the projected Union,
resolved not to be comprehended in it, until we find that we
can no longer keep out. Some Confederates argued that if
we agreed to go into the Union, even upon the proposed
terms, there would be no insuperable difficult, after its
consummation, in any way of our obtaining better terms,
should our claims be fully urged by our representatives in
the Federal Parliament. Such an idea was absurd in the
extreme. Of obtaining better terms, or even a revision of
our claims, through the exertions on our behalf of our 5
members, in the Federal House of Commons, opposed to 147
Canadian members, we should just have as little chance as
a cat without claws in Hell. It was folly, indeed, to think
that we might go into the Federation, and then obtain better terms than were offered
to us by the Quebec Scheme.
The Canadian statesmen thought we were too well of in being free from direct taxation;
but happily free from burthens of that kind as we were, we had quite enough to do
with all our money. The hon. gentlemen then commented
with some severity on what he called the anomalous position
of the Government with respect to the Confederation Question,—four members of it,
in the Legislature, arguing in
favor of Union, against fine opposed to it. For a Government when so divided in opinion
concerning the most important, the most vital question that the Government and Parliament
of any country could be called upon to entertain—
the remodelling of its Constitution and Government,—was
a thing unheard of. In the British Parliament, it was
never found that, upon important questions, one member of
the Administration voted in one way, and another, in another. It was said by those
who argued in favour of Confederation, that if we valued British institutions, if
we
valued our rights and privileges as British subjects, we
would accede to Confederation. He, however, maintained
that were we to become a member of the projected Union,
we would actually be deprived of all these, and retrograde
a century. Confederation, instead of being a means of binding us more closely and
indissolubly to the British Crown,
would, eventually, be the cause of our separation from it.
The moment the Upper House should come into collision
with the Lower House, some extreme measure would be had
recourse to. Should we, however, remain as we were, we
would be safe. If we entered into Confederation, we would
be much more in danger of quarreling with the United
States than we are now. As we were, should we be assailed by the United States, what
would Great Britain do
with us, but protect us? The glory argument was, that,
by confederating with Canada and the other Provinces, we
should become part and parcel of a great nation; byt the
people of Prince Edward Island knew themselves to be already part and parcel of a
great nation, and they had no
desire to belong to any other. As to defence, we were quite
willing to contribute our full quota for that purpose according to our ability. We
were told that, as it was the positive desire of the Home Government that we should
agree
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
114
to confederate, we would be looked upon as rebels if we did
not. No fear of that. So long, said the hon. gentleman,
as Great Britain shall allow us to remain in our present independent position, there
will be no fear of our assuming,
towards her, any thing like a disloyal or rebellious attitude;
and a manifestation of our sacred regard for the priceless
boon of Self-Government, which she has conferred upon us,
and our determination to retain it unimpaired, as long as
we shall be able to do so, will never be looked upon by her
as a proof of disaffection, but rather as an undeniable evidence of our most just
and grateful appreciation of that inestimable blessing. What drove Canada into rebellion
was
the Home Government's refusal to grant her Responsible
or Self Government; and what had brought her back to
loyalty and affection was the conferring upon her, and under a
free representative Constitution, the full control and management of her own revenue
and affairs. Great Britain well
knew that the boon of Responsible or Self-Government was
the greatest which she could confer upon any of her Dependencies or Colonies, and
that which bound them most
strongly in loyalty and affection to her; and, as respected
any Colony or Dependency, upon which she had conferred
that privilege, as long as it continued true in its allegiance
to her, and obedient to the laws, and desired to retain that
form of Government in all its independent integrity, so long,
he firmly believed, would she consider it to be beyond the
constitutional stretch, even of her Imperial power, either to
suspend or withdraw that form of Government from such
Colony or Dependency, or even to impair it. We had not
obtained that form of Government by rebellion, but by an
exercise of constitutional means; and, both as account of
the mode by which we had obtained it, and the happy man
ner in which—although even to the establishment of universal
manhood suffage—we had carried its privileges into practice,
we were entitled to the especial consideration of the Home
Government; and, he doubted not, we would receive it.
Hon. members who advocated our being embraced by the
Confederation Scheme had very plainly hinted their belief
that if we did not, of our own accord, agree to enter it, the
Home Government would compel us to do so; but he did
not believe that the British Parliament would allow us to
be coerced. Hon. members may refer to speeches made by
me in Canada, and endeavour, by attaching undue weight
to the import of some isolated expressions which I then, perhaps rather unguardedly
made us of, to shew that I then approved of the Quebec Scheme; but, at the same time,
these
hon. members well know, in their hearts, that I was not
so; and you, yourself, Mr. Chairman, might, I think, testify
so much in my behalf, for you will, doubtless, recollect that
when I met you, in New Brunswick, on my way home from
the Quebec Conference, I told you it would be impossible for Prince Edward Island
to go into Confederation
upon the terms of the Quebec Scheme, without a sacrifice
of her independence, and of her best and dearest interests;
and that, therefore, I was decidedly opposed to the Island's
being included in it. But even granting that, as has been
said, I changed my views concerning Confederation after my
return from Canada to Prince Edward Island, what will
that matter? If we are never to change our views concerning any measure which may
be projected, f what use is our
debating upon it. In a Legislature, if members were never
to be allowed to change their opinions, there would be no
chance whatever of return, and abuses would for ever remain unredressed. In Great
Britain, every reform, every
rectification of wrong, every redress of grievances, which
has been effected by parliamentary action has been brought
about by a change of opinion, not infrequently both with
out, as well as within, the walls of Parliament. It has been
said, by some hon. members, that with our tariff lower than
that of the Federation we would not be left out, because in
that case we would become the resort of smugglers; but I
believe, if the people would submit to be governed by the
opinion of mercantile men, and consent to the obolition of
customs and impost duties, and fully establish free-trade
privileges, and have recourse to direct taxation in lien of
those duties, they would find the change a most beneficial
one. It was also said by hon. members who advocated
Confederation, that no action should be taken with respect
to it, by the Assembly, until it should have been fairly put
before the people at the coming General Election. Well,
we would all be glad, no doubt, to have an opportunity of
again appealing to the people. When we do so, they will
certainly wish to know who of the candidates for their suffrages, are in favour of
Confederation, and who are opposed
to it; and I am quite willing that " Confederation or No
Confederation" shall be the issue to be submitted to the
people for their determination, and the test of the fitness
of candidates for election. As respects the amendment, said
the hon. gentleman, if we vote for it, we shall vote for Confederation; and yet, most
inconsistently, it concludes by
saying that, in the opinion of this House no vote should be
passed by the Legislature of this country in favor of Confederation until the people
shall first have been afforded an
opportunity of pronouncing their judgment on the question
at a General Election." Now, as I do not wish to go into
what I said last Session, I will be brief in any further remarks which I have to make
touching the subject. As respects the Resolutions which have been submitted by the
Hon.
the Leader of the Government. I will now merely observe
that, had I been consulted concerning them, I would have
advised the striking out of the middle one, and the retention of only the first and
last. I know not what pressure
has been brought to bear upon the Government, but I believe some has, and the effect
has been the bringing down
of the Resolutions in their present form. As they stand,
however, I will vote for them. I certainly was once, I
must confess, in favor of a Federal Union of these Provinces,
because I was of opinion that it would give us greater weight
at the Colonial Office, where the influence of the large proprietors had always prevailed
against us to the hinderanos
of any fair and equitable settlement of the Land Question.
But now I am fully convinced that any advantage we might,
on that score, derive from our confederating with the other
Provinces, would be far overbalanced by the losses which it
would, politically, commercially, and financially, directly
bring upon us; and, therefore, with the qualifications which
I have already made with respect to them, I am prepared
unhesitatingly to vote for the Resolutions of the Hon. the
Leader of the Government. I do not wish to say any thing
harsh against those hon. members who differ with me on
this question. If we went into the proposed Union, we
would be at the mercy of those who do not think as we do
on the subject of parliamentary representation. We have
universal manhood suffrage and an elective Legislative
Council; but they have neither. I think that, if we, in little
Prince Edward Island, be left as we are, we shall be able to
manage our own affairs quite as well as the people of Canada
have managed theirs, and, indeed, I believe a great deal better.
We are told that Her Majesty the Queen is earnest in her
desire thatsuch a scheme of Confederation as will, without exception, embrace all
these Provinces, shall speedily be carried
into effect; and that, if we oppose ourselves to that earnest
desire of Her most gracious Majesty—a desire entertained
by her solely in consequence of her belief that such Confede
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
115
ration would afford the best security for the preservation of
our free British institutions and for the promotion of the
present and future well-being of the whole - we shall justly
lay ourselves open to the imputation of disloyalty. From
this view of the question, I, however, wholly dissent. I sincerly believe, indeed,
that our good and gracious Queen is,
at all times, animated by a truly parental solicitude and regard for the well-being
of her faithful subjects, in every
quarter of her immense empire; but 1 do not believe that
she will ever determine to manifest that solicitude and regard towards any portion
of them, constituting a people, by
urging them to do that which they believe wlll be either fatal
to their best and dearest interests, or at least be greatly inimical to them. I do
not, therefore, believe that Her gracious Majesty, if duly informed of our unwillingness—and
of the grounds of that unwillingness—to be included in the
projected Confederation of these Provinces. will ever consent
to our being coerced into it; or that, because—after the experience of a long and,
upon the whole, successful management of our own affairs—we presume to know better,
than
we believe she can possibly do. what is best for our own interests, she will ever
be brought to think of us as a disobedient
or disloyal people. But besides, Sir, 1 do not believe that
the question of the Confederation of these Provinces has
ever been submitted to Her Majesty for the purpose of ascertaining her views concerning
it, or that she has really,
of herself, expressed any opinion either for or against it—
any wish either that it should or should not take place.
Her present ministers are indeed, in favor of it; and, in
the usual ministerial style, when recommending it, they
give to their own views the semblance of the Royal will.
But all this we fully understand; and we know that neither
in Parliament nor out of Parliament, are parties or individuals opposing an administration
ever, on account of such
opposition, accused of disloyalty to the Sovereign. Therefore to say that we shall
deservedly subject ourselves to the
imputation of disloyalty, if, on the question of Confederation, we oppose the views
of Her Majesty's Ministers—men who, although in,
power to-day, may, tomorrow, have to give place to others of a different way of thinking—is
truly absurd. As respected the hints
which had been thrown out concerning the probability of our obtaining, by means of
Delegates to the proposed London Convention,
the concession of better terms than those which are offered to us by
the Quebec Scheme of Confederation, he was fully persuaded that,
should any attempt of that kind be made, it would be altogether futile. The leading
Canadian statesmen and the Home Government
were pledged to the integrity of the Quebec Scheme; and, even although the Heme Government
might be found willing to have it modified, either for the benefit of Prince Edward
Island, or that of any
of the Lower Provinces, leading Canadians had declared that no
modification whatever of that scheme should be made, and that, rather than it should,
Canada would declare herself independent of
the Mother Country and defy the power of Great Britain to control
her. To show how really small are the chances of our obtaining, by
any means, better terms than those which are offered us by the Quebec scheme, I will
read from an article on this point from the Quebec "Weekly Citizen," of 5th May, 1866.
The hon, gentleman then
read as follows:
(From the Weekly Citizen, 5th May, 1866.)
Mr. Cartier,in the Canadian Parliament, in 1865, in reply to a
speech of the Hon. Mr. Dorion, intimating that the British Government might introduce
into the Act to be passed by the Imperial Parliament features not contemplated by
the original
Resolutions, said:
"In reply to what the hon. member for Hochelaga has just
said, I shall merely tell the honorable member of this House that
they need not take alarm at the apprehensions and predictions of
that hon. gentleman. I have already declared in my own name,
and on behalf of the Goverment, 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. I have pledged my word of honor and that of
the Government to that effect."
Will this satisfy the opponents of the Quebec Scheme in the
country, how unsubstantial and insincere are the representations
that have been made as to the possiblitiy of the terms of Union
being changed? If not, if anything more is wanted to convince
them, let them read the following from the Journal de Quebec,
the organ of Mr. Coucheon, an able and influential supporter of
the McDonald Cartier Ministry and of their Confederation
policy:—
"The Canadian Parliament has adopted a scheme of constitution
which has been approved of by England, and that of Nova Scotia has
adopted a simple resolution which permits the Government of the
Empire to determine its future lot. The first Province numbers
more than three millions of inhabitants; the second has but three
hundred thousand. Which of these two Provinces will make its
opinions prevail in the Council of the Sovereign? Moreover, if it is
the Parliament of Nova Scotia which has adopted the resolution of
which we havejust spoken, it is the Parliament of Canada. which
has adopted the plan of the Quebec Convention, and our Ministers
cannot renounce it without the consent of the some authority.
Hence we may, and do say that if the Delegates should go to England, on the invitation
of the Imperial Government, before the
opening of our Legislature, they must go there to maintain absolutely the plan of
the Quebec Convention; and England, even if
she desires it, could not go beyond that, because she NEITHER
WOULD NOR COULD RETAIN CANADA AGAINST HER WILL."
The hon Gentleman then argued that, such being the opinions of the
fathers of the Confederation Scheme—and as, in all probability, the
Delegates who should be apoointed to the London Convention, as
well on the part of the Lower Provinces as on the part of the Canadas. would be such
as had already pledged themselves to support
the Quebec Scheme in its entirety—any Delegates from Prince EdWard Island who might
be appointed to that Convention for the purpose of obtaining a modification in the
Quebec Scheme favourable to our
interests, would—however talented, and however zealous they might be
in their endeavours to obtain such a modification of it—be overborne
and outweighed by the Canadian Delegates. In further evidence of
the soundness and tenability of my opinion, said the hon. gentleman,
I will read another short passage with reference to the same point
from a late number of La Minerve, the Hon. Mr. Cartier's own organ. He then read as follows:
"The position taken in Nova Scotia requires the formation of a
new Convention at London, for the elaboration of a scheme to be
presented to the Imperial Government. This Convention, as we
have already said, will have little to do since THE QUEBEC SCHEME
CANNOT BE AMENDED."
The hon. gentleman then concluded by saying, that these opinions
concerning the Quebec Scheme, expressed in no abiguous language,
fully warranted, he thought, his belief that neither by any appointment of Delegates
to the London Convention, nor by any other means to
which it was possible for us to have recourse, could we either procure
the framing and adoption of such a new scheme as we could approve of,
or such a modification of the terms of the Quebec one as would render it. worthy of
our acceptance. Prince Edward Island, would,
therefore, in his opinion, not wisely in remaining as she is—leaving
to others the hazardous experiment of'abandonirg their present several independent
and assured positions to engage in an untried connexion. and to assume burthens and
responsibilities, the weight of
which is unknown.
Hon. SOL GENERAL: I would like to give some
explanation respecting a clause in the Quebec Report referring to the manner in which
the Legislative Councillors
for this island were to be selected. The hon. member has
laid down the theory that, by that Report, the Councillors
were not to be selected from the Council as it stands, and
no doubt, he said, the Canadians would not select them for
particular reasons; but I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and
to this House, and to the public. that the clause referred to,
Was placed in the Report at the unanimous request of the
Delegates of Prince Edward Island. because we considered
it unfair that, as the other Colonies had nominative Councils. and we had our elective
one, the choice should be narrowed down to twelve or thirteen hon. members who were
elected by constituencies, and make them Councillors for
life. We considered that they should have the length and
the breadth of the Island to choose from. That, I considered a sound principle.
Mr. DUNCAN: If they were chosen from the Council there would be some probability at least that
they would
be the choice of the people; but very little respect was
paid to the wishes of the people. The members of the
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
116
Council were elected by men of property, and therefore,
are more likely to be lit to be members of the Federal
Council than men chosen by the Government of Canada,
which knew nothing bout the Island, and cared less.
Hon. Sol. GENERAL: The hon. member himself has
laid down the principle that the members of Council should
possess a property qualification, and real and personal
estate' was placed in the Constitution at the suggestion of
the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He showed that,
if it was confined to freehold, it would not be fair because
many tenants on the Island were as well qualified as freeholders. When he threw out
that suggestion the other
Island Delegates were in favor of it; and it should be remembered that they were to
be chosen by the Federal Government, not by the Canadian Government. If members
of the House and the people would look upon it independently of party views. and if
they were asked whether they
would have them chosen from the Council or have the
whole Island to choose from. I believe nine-tenths would
pronounce in favor of the mode adopted in the Report.
Mr. DUNCAN: I was not opposed to a property
qualification. either real or personal; but I said, and I
think it is very strange, that they should be taken from
the Councils in the other Provinces, and this Island be
made an exception. The views of both parties were to be
respected; but it is very possible that they had little prospect of finding persons
favorable to their views in the
Council of this Island. Whatever it was, I hope it will
never be put to the test, for I hope we will never have
more to do with them in that way than we have at present.
Hon. J. C. POPE: It is not my intention to occupy
the attention of the Committee for any length of time; but,
regarding the remarks made by the Hon. the Leader of the
Opposition. I must object to the principle that some members of the Government disagreeing
with others should resign. On the contrary, I think they should state their
views on this great question freely, and independently. We
know that the hon. member agreed to the Report of the
Delegates at Quebec, as well as members of' the Government. Therefore, having been
assented to by both, sides,
it could scarcely be expected that it would be brought
down as a Government measure; and suppose it had, there
is a majority in the Government opposed to the Quebec
Scheme, who do not think that Prince Edward Island
should go into Confederation with Canada. And how is a
Government to be carried on in the country? Suppose
some members favorable to Confederation should resign- the Leader of the Opposition
was favorable to it himself,
and how would a Government be formed? Under all the
circumstances, I do not think a resignation was called for,
and it was so understood when Resolutions were introduced
by myself last year. It was plainly stated that it was a
free and open question, and that members could act as they
thought proper. Allusion has been made to some pressure,
brought to bear upon the Government.
Hon. Mr. COLES: I only repeated what the hon. the
Solicitor General said.
Hon. J. C. POPE: I do not acknowledge a pressure
from any quarter so long as I represent the views of the people and the majority of
the Legislature. If a pressure were
brought to bear upon me I would not hold the position
which I occupy to-day. If the question were put to me I
would, perhaps, say the Resolutions are stronger than I
desire; but at the same time, there is a necessity at present
to make them strong, so that there can be no possibility of
mistaking what the views of the Legislature are. It has been
said that Confederation could not be carried without an appeal
to the people. In Nova Scotia it was not submitted to the
people. In two or three places where elections were held
the friends of the Scheme were rejected; but now there is a
Delegation to be sent to England to arrange a Scheme of
Confederation, and that Scheme is the Quebec Scheme of
would be useless for us to send Delegates. This Island in
so small in comparison with Canada and the other Provinces, that they would have no
influence beyond the proportionate extent of country they would represent. I believe
the Governor of New Brunswick has taken an improper course. The Quebec Scheme was
rejected at the polls;
and how could the Governor carry on the business of the
country with a Government opposed to the wishes of the
people? Therefore, it beboves this House to pass stronger
Resolutions than it would, perhaps, otherwise do, because I
do think that if Nova Scotia and New Brunswick go into
the Union, this Island must, sooner or later, go in also—
At the same time we will not be told by the British Government that we must go in,
but a pressure will be brought
to bear upon us, and we will be made to feel that it will be
for our own interest to go in. The reason the Resolutions
were made so strong was that a large majority might support them, for if they were
not strong, while there is such
a strong feeling in the House and in the country, stronger
Resolutions would be introduced, and parties would be
split up. One or two more, perhaps, may declare in favor
of Confederation than voted for itlast year; but the course
pursued by the Colonial Secretary last year was such that
members were debarred from voting on the abstract question of a Union of the Colonies.
I dare say some will be
prepared to vote against the Resolutions; but, as I believe
that ninety-nine out of every hundred of the people are
against Confederation, I think we, as their representatives,
are bound to represent or express their views, even though
the matter has not been submitted to them at an election,
And as to the Government not being composed of members
who are all favorable to the Quebec Scheme, if so, the Leader of the Opposition would
support the Government, and
we would have no Opposition at all. Now, there are two
or three points in that Scheme which I particularly object
to, though I do not intend to go into the details. Representation by population is
not fair as regards this country.
Where there are large towns there are not so many different interests as there are
in a country like this—
Therefore, I do not believe in it as a principle. It is not
favorably looked upon by reformers of the present day.—
Even Earl Russell does not believe in representation by
population. As was said here last year, by that rule
London would have more representatives than Scotland- If I had acted as a delegate
when the delegates from Canada were here, and when they laid it. down that they
would not entertain the question at all, unless representation by Population were
acceded to. I would stopped there
and said no. I will not agree to it and [blame the Leader
of the Opposition and those other delegates who agreed to
it. They should not have done so; for it is one of the
strongest objections to that scheme. The Solicitor General
says he was opposed to Legislative Union; but, in my opinion, that is the proper Union
for us to have if we have any.
If we have a Parliament in Canada, what do we want with
a Governor and Legislative Council and House of Assembly
here? It is considered the next thing to a farce now. We
are looked upon as too small to have a Government and
Legislature. The thign would be absurd. If the Colonies
were confederated, and we had our Local Legislature, you
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
117
here and go through the farce of legislating. The Island
would dwindle down to the position of a small rotten borough.
These are two of the strongest objections I have to the Quebec Scheme. I do not find
fault with gentlemen for adhering
to what they agreed to in Canada; but I do not think it
was fair for the Canadians to come here and say "We will
not entertain the question unless you acknowledge this primciple." The Leader of the
Opposition said he would rather
see the middle paragraph struck out of the Resolutions. So
would I; but I said they were here for the House to deal
with them as it thought proper. The Resolution says:—
"This House cannot admit that a Federal Union of the North
American Colonies, that would include Prince Edward Island, could
ever be accomplished upon terms that would prove advantageous to
the interests and well-being of the people of this Island, cut off and
separated as it is, and must ever remain, from the neighbouring Provinces, by an immovable
barrier of ice for many months in the year;
and this House deems it to be its sacred and imperative duty to declare and record
its conviction, as it now does, that any Federal Union
of the North American Colonies, that would include Prince Edward
Island, would be as hostile to the feelings and wishes, as it would be
opposed to the best and most vital interests of its people."
Now, that is the strong part of the Resolutions; but what is
meant is that we presume that no terms could be got from
the Canadians, that would be just and acceptable to the
people of this Island. But once make an admission that we
are favorable to a Union and there is a probability of our being dragged into it in
such a way that we could not well
extricate ourselves from it. As I believe these Resolutions
represent the views of the majority of the people, I have, so
far, very little objection to them. I am prepared to vote
for them as they are; and, if the House should choose to
strike out the middle paragraph, I would care very little
about it. The Resolutions of last year were strong, and the
first Resolution here conveys all that is required to confirm
them; which, for me, would have been strong enough. I
said, Sir, on rising, that I did not intend to prolong the debate, and it may be considered
presumption in me to
criticise the amendment of the hon. member for St.
Peter's (Mr. Whelan); but I do not think I can give him
credit for its being a very able and straightforward Resolution. It says:
"RESOLVED, as the opinion of this House, that the Confederation
of Her Majesty's American Colonial possessions would be—while in
conformity with Her Majesty's frequently expressed desire—conducive to their welfare,
separately and collectively. * * * * But
inasmuch as the people of Prince Edward Island do not appear to be
prepared to regard with any favor the project of Confederation, it is
unwise to press it upon public attention, as its discussion is only calculated to
produce excitement and apprehension, without a reasonable
cause.
Now, I consider it to be the duty of a representative of the
people, if he considers that any measure would be for their
benefit to bring it before, and urge it upon them; but to say
that although, in his opinion, it would be conducive to the welfare of the people,
yet, because they do not think so, it should
be pressed, is not a good argument. If I considered any
matter to be for the good of the country, I think it would be
my duty to advocate it, whether the people were satisfied
with it or not; and if he believes his constituency would be
benefited by Confederation, he should use every means in his
power to bring the people up to it, instead of saying because
the people do not think so it is fully to press it. Then, if he
admits that the people are not in favour of it, the proper way
would be to go against Confederation in any shape. I take
it, that a gentleman standing here should represent the views
of his constituency. If he is satisfied that any measure is for
the good of the country, it is his duty to go to the country
and stand or fall by it; and if he cannot make the people believe that it is for their
interests, he should either keep his
opinion in abeyance, or retire, and let the people choose another who would represent
their views.
Hon. Mr. COLES: The Hon. the Leader of the Government said that the Delegates should not have consented
to
the principle of representation by population. They did not
consent to it; for, after the Canadian Delegates came here
and stated their case, the first Delegation ceased, and another
was appointed. Therefore, it was for the Government to consider the matter.
Hon. Col. GRAY: The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition
was not present when the Canadian Delegates declared that
they would not entertain the question unless the principle of
representation according to population were acceded to.
Mr. McLENNAN: It was my intention to have addressed
the Committee at an earlier stage of the debate; but as the
big guns wished to fire off first, I was prepared to listen to
their report, if not to feel their shot; and as the remarks I
intended to make have been already expressed, I shall not
now detain the House by repeating them.—When the question of the Quebec Scheme was
before us last year, I said
that anything I might say would not hasten or retard the
Union. I am of the same opinion still. Whatever change may
have taken place outside, it is evident that there is some
change in the members of this House since last year. It is
certainly a very important question, and the hon. member
for New Glasgow (Mr. Longworth) said, yesterday, that we
should be very guarded for it would be legislating for our
children's children. That I admit; but at the same time I
would not say that there never could be a scheme of Union propounded which would be
a benefit to the Island. I have no
desire to misrepresent any member of this House; but I believe there are some who
are extremely strong anti-confederates; and without doing any injustice to the hon.
member
for Murray Harbour (Mr. Duncan) I believe he would bind
his children and children's children never to take any action
in Confederation; but I have no desire to do that. I stand
here as the representative of as independent, progressive and
intelligent a constituency as there is on the Island; but I have
no desire to bind them, or their children, not to go for Confederation. The hon. and
learned member for Charlottetown,
(Hon. Mr. Brecken) said, yesterday, that the British Government was determined to
carry Confederation. If so, anything I can say will not prevent it. He, at the same
time,
admitted that we would be a great deal stronger if we were
united. I was glad to hear him say so, for I am of the same
opinion. I would be satisfied to remain as we are, if the
other Colonies would do so. I believe we have progressed,
according to our means and resources, as much as the other
Colonies for the last few years; but, if they will unite, the
great question for us to consider will be, whether we will go
with them or remain as we are? I want to leave it an open
question; and, for that reason, I willsupport the amendment
introduced by the hon. member from St. Peter's (Mr. Whelan). Many things have been
said about bribery—that those
in favor of Confederation are bribed: as well might we say
that those against it are bribed. I believe that those in the
other Provinces who have the most means are against Confederation, and why would not
they be as likely to use bribery as those who are in favor of it. I consider the conduct
of the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, to be as
inconsistent as that of any member of this House; and, in
fact, I believe it is getting like the land question. I did
not think, when the Conference was held at Quebec that
this question would be settled in such a short time. We
hear some members express some very extraordinary ideas.
The hon. member from the East Point (Mr. McEachen)
would defy the British Government to take away our Constitution. And then it is said
we will show our loyalty by
placing the whole Revenue at the disposal of the Government. What would our whole
Revenue do towards defending us, if the British Government should cast us off? We
acknowledge Great Britain as our parent, and we know that
parents, when their children disobey, will cast them off; so
will she do with us. If I were to support the Resolutions of
the Hon. the Leader of the Government, I believe I would be
advancing or advocating Confederation more strongly than
in supporting the amendment. We are not gomg to say to
the Mother Country " We will not listen to your suggestions ": We are not going to
say " They may withdraw all
their troops; but then see how loyal we are!" What
would our whole revenue do? It would not equip and command one good gun boat. We talk
about our Militia and
Volunteers. I spent some time in connection with the vol
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
118
unteer movement myself; but I got tired of it, and tendered
my resignation last year.
Mr. McLENNAN. Well, I never was notifiedthat
such was the case. I shall not detain the Committee any
longer. I have listened to long speeches here, but I often
think they are intended for electioneering dodges, but it is
not so with me. I believe my constituency understand my
views, and I will abide by the consequences. I do not see
why any hon. member should object to the amendment;
nor do I see why we should say that no Scheme of Union
that could be propounded would be a benefit to the Island.
Circumstances alter cases and circumstances have changed
since last year. Then we had a flourishing trade with the
United States, but now it is cut off. I would not bind
myself or my children to pursue any particular line of conduct. With these few remarks
I will support the amendment.
Mr. BRECKEN. I did say that union would strengthen British America, and I am of the same opinion
still;
but at the Quebec Conference, due regard was not paid to
the interests of this Island. I have no respect for the man
who would advocate or condemn this Scheme for the purpose of popularity. Perhaps the
advocates of Union occupy
a more honorable position in this House than those who oppose it; but I would not
advocate it for that reason. I
do not altogether agree with the wording of the Resolution;
but I would not entertain the question at all unless there
was a prospect of getting the terms changed. I give the
hon. member (Mr. Whelan) credit for the ingenious way in
which he has worded the amendment. It admits the principle of Confederations, and
the terms were said, by the
Colonial Secretary, to be just and liberal to Prince Edward Island. I presume the
hon. member did not refer to
the Quebec Scheme, though I think the amendment has
some connection with it. And is there any prospect of a
change being made so that the interests of this Colony will
be protected? I do not want to see a Union at the expense of the people of this Island;
and I believe the men
who propounded that scheme did not know anything
about the local circumstances of this Island. I have not
thrown out any improper insinuations. I would accord to
every man the same respect as I would claim for myself.
But I believe it is mere delusion to talk about the Quebec
Scheme. Let the Canadians show the people of Prince
Edward Island that, while they pay due regard to the
broad principle of Union, they will give us a chance to live
—that our peculiar wants and circumstances will be properly looked after—and not say
to us " you must take
any particular scheme of Union, " when they do not know
anything about our circumstances.
Mr. SINCLAIR the hon. member from Summerside
(Mr. McLennan) will not vote for the Resolutions of the
hon. the Leader of the Government, because they would
bind us for all time to come; but that is only a matter of
opinion. The next House may pass very different Resolutions. I do not see how any
hon. member can vote for the
amendment; for it is certainly a strange Resolution. It
admits that Confederation would be for the benefit of the
Island, and yet says it is unwise to press it upon the attention of the people, because
it would create unnecessary
apprehension in their winds. The meaning I take out of
it is, that it is better to let the thing slide on—to let Delegates be appointed and
sent to England—to let a Scheme
be concocted and carried into effort, and the people allowed
to pass an opinion on it at a general election afterwards.
The Resolution says:— "And this House believes that a
plan of Confederation might be so framed as not to involve
the sacrifice of any material interests on the part of any
Province; but, inasmuch as the people of Prince Edward
Island do not appear to be prepared to regard with any
favor the project of Confederation, it is unwise to press it
upon public attention, as its discussion is only calculated
to produce excitement and apprehension without reasonable
cause." What is the meaning of this, if it is not that the
people of Prince Edward Island are not capable of forming
an opinion, and, therefore, it is better to pass a Resolution
to allow the British Government to take action, and then
it will be time enough to press it upon public attention. I
agree with the hon. member from Murray Harbor (Mr.
Duncan) inasmuch as I do not see how we could vote for
that Resolution, and refuse to appoint a Delegation. The
hon. member from Summerside (Mr. McLennan) said that
if the British Government was determined to unite the Colonies, it was little matter
whether he supported the Resolution or not—that it would be as well to drop the subject
and leave it alone.
Mr. McLENNAN I did not say that it would be as
well to drop the subject and leave it alone.
Mr. SINCLAIR I understood the hon. member to say
that it would be as well to take no action on it. The British Government has certainly
expressed a desire that the
Colonies would unite; but we are not told that we are to
be forced into a Union. The Colonial Minister, in his Despatch, expressed an earnest
desire for the consolidation of
the British Provinces in one Government. In regard to
Colonial defences, I would be willing that the views of the
British Government should be urged upon the Colonies
with all just authority. While I believe we are willing to
allow that—for I consider it to be our duty to give all due
consideration to the opinion of the British Government in
things of that kind—yet, sir, I am of opinion that we owe a
higher duty to our country and to our children—the duty
to preserve the inalienable right of self-government. "Self- preservation is the first
law of nature." and it will hold good
with regard to nations and colonies, as well as individuals.
We are willing to contribute of our means, but not to give
up our liberties, which our fathers have obtained for us.
Though we are a small Colony and unable to offer any formidable resistance, that is
no reason that we should voluntarily surrender a Constitution with which we are satisfied.
We are prepared to do everything in our power, within the
bonds of reason, to maintain our connection with the British Empire. We have liberty
to tax ourselves, and we are
prepared to do our part; therefore, I do not think the
British Government will ever attempt to coerce us into a
Union against the wishes of the people, and which we
believe would be prejudicial to our interests. It
is useless for us to go into the details of the Scheme or
to point out all the disadvantages to the Island of a Union
with Canada. It is admitted by nearly all, even those in
favor of a Union, that it would not be an advantage to the
Island to enter the Union on the basis of the Quebec Scheme;
and, for my part, I do not expect to get better terms,
though, even if we could we are an exception to the other
Colonies. and a basis of Union which would be suitable and
advantageous to them would not be so to us. I might
point out objections which I have to the form of the Constitution, but I do not intend
to go minutely into the merits
or demerits of the Quebec Schemes. It is a conglomerate
Constitution which I do not think would be, or should be,
sanctioned by the people of British North America.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
119
Mr. McEACHEN. I think it would be better
if the hon. member from Georgetown (Mr. Haviland) would
propound some feasible scheme of Union than to work
himself into such a flaring passion. It is a very bad sign
of a cause when its advocates lose their temper. Indeed
the advocates of Confederation appear to be very thin- skinned. I never accused them
of being bribed, but I have
no doubt but they may have seen something looming in the
distance which dazzled their eyes. I do not say it was
gold; perhaps it was something else. I suppose those gentlemen who sold Ireland for
ÂŁ600 000 were as sensitive touching their personal honor as the gentlemen who held
the Conference at Quebec. The Hon. Sol. General made
allusion to the stand the Catholic Bishops have taken, but I
do not believe they understood the situation of the question;
and, if they think to get us bound to Canada, they are mistaken. The people who hunted
the Prince of Wales from
town to town as if he was a wild beast escaped from a menagerie, are not the people
with whom they would be willing
to be united. I wish the advocates of Union had propounded some Scheme instead of
scolding us; and, as they
have not done so, I still adhere to the opinion I expressed
yesterday.
Hon. Mr. DUNCAN. In reply to the Hon. Sol. General,
I would say that when I was young there were very few public schools, and when he
was going to school, I was probably
holding the plough or working in a ship-yard. I do not pretend to be able to use very
classical language, but if I can
make people understand me, that is all I want. Though I
have not had a liberal education, yet I have some natural
ability. Nature has not been so niggardly to me that I
have not been able to provide for myself; and I did not need
the help of a father to set me agoing. I feel the want of
education—I do not deny it; but I would call the attention
of the House to the amendment which says; " This House
believes that a plan of Confederation might be so planned as
not to involve the sacrifice of any material interests on the
part of any Province." Now, if that is the case, who is the
party to frame it? I know the gentleman who drew up that
Resolution has had a good education, and he has drawn it up
in a very nice way. Perhaps he will not deny that there is
some prize in the distance. The Resolution implies that it is
possible to frame some plan of Union which would be acceptable to the people, and
if we make that admission, just when
the House is rising, it will be an excuse for appointing a Delegation I believe the
man who votes for that resolution
votes for a Union of some sort, and he must do so either ignorantly or intentionally.
Hon. SOL. GENERAL. I must reply to the hon. member
from Murray Harbour again. He says that if we agree to
this amendment we will be selling the rights of the people—
that the Governor will be bound to appoint a Delegation to
Downing Street. Do we not kwnow that Governors who come
out here have previously served an apprenticeship in the
House of Commons? And if one should come here who is
a stranger, would he not enquire if a majority in the Legislature would support a
Delegation? If not, he would say
he could not appoint one. The hon. member has made
a great blow off respecting his position, which he has
obtained altogether in consequence of his own merits. He
has thrown out an insinuation—and I take his challenge—
that I hold my position in consequence of the assistance of
my father. I say, before this House and the country, that I
owe nothing to my father as regards my political or pecuniary
position. Though I have a father who is well off, he has
kept his money to himself, and left me to fight my own
battles. The hon. member boasts that his talent has placed
him where he is; but what I produce is my own, and free
from outside influence. What I protect against is, that
members of the House do not enunciate their own views, but
use what is placed in their hands by back-street influence
outside of the Legislature. This I say deliberately, and hon.
members are at liberty to take the constitutional course re
lative to the statement I now make. But I am not going to
stultify myself with regard to this question. It is my interest
to advocate what I consider to be for the interest of the Colony. I have three sons
and three daughters who were born
here, and that shows that it is not a mere matter of moonshine with me. Hon. members
may say what they like
about gold, but let them prove their base insinuationss.
Mr. HOWLAN. If any person used it, it was the hon.
member from St. Peter's.
Hon. SOL. GENERAL. I have heard a member of this
House use it outside of these walls.
Mr. HOWLAN. We should not say anything here about
assertions made outside.
Hon. SOL. GENERAL. It is my firm belief that it has
been used, but if the majority say it was not, I will bow to
their decision, yet I will not bow to the individual opinion
of the hon. member from Cascumpec. The hon. member
from the East Point may say that I speak in an excited manner on this subject, but
when I hear the Hon. member from
Murray Harbor (Mr. Duncan) attempt to put a construction
upon this Resolution which I will not bear, I must speak as I
have done. And when it says that no action should be
taken till an appeal is made to the people, and he says that
it will authorize the appointment of a Delegation—that the
country may be sold—and such like assertions; I say he
does not understand the Resolution, and he must believe that
every man in the Government is as corrupt as he can be.
Mr. HASLEM. I think such insinuations are quite uncalled for, and are highly improper. I have
heard the term
" Canadian gold " used, but I cannot believe that any hon.
member of this House would be so corrupt as to accept a bribe
to sell his country.
Mr. DUNCAN. I said that if the Government would not
do so, others would.
Hon. Col. GRAY. The hon. member from Murray Harbour (Mr. Duncan) insinuated a great deal, such as
a member by his vote being guilty of treason to his constituency.
What does he mean by treason? If a gentleman goes down
to a constituency at the request of another, and that gentleman turns round and throws
out a groundless insinuation
against the gentleman who supported him, what connection
would that have with treason? Or will he say how far my
supporting the amendment will be treason to my constituency?
Mr. DUNCAN. I do not know what the hon. and gallant
Col. means unless it is that he returned me to the House of
Assembly. If so, I was not aware of it, and if it is the case, I
must thank him, not my constituency; but they did not give
me to understand that they were voting for Col. Gray. I
thought they were voting for James Duncan. I am still of
opinion, that if we pass this amendment, the Governor will
have it in his power to send a Delegation to Downing Street.
Mr. SINCLAIR. Should we vote for the amendment
would it not be voting in favour of Confederation?
Hon. SOL. GENERAL. We want no action taken till it is
decided at the polls; and no action to bind the Colony would
be proper without an appeal to the people. If the hon.
member would read the Resolution carefully, I think he would
form the same opinion.
Mr. SINCLAIR. I have read the Resolution carefully,
and the opinion I have formed is that if it is adopted this
House will be voting in favour of Confederation.
Hon. SOL. GENERAL. It merely admits that practicable
terms of Union could be devised, and it is impossible to lay
down the principle, that no terms could be devised, which
would be beneficial to this Colony. We admit that such
terms could be devised, but in consequence of the extraordinary feeling in the country
against Confederation, it would
be injudicious to press the matter till after a general election.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
120
Were the Governor to appoint a Delegation without an appeal
to the people, he would be guilty of an unconstitutional act,
unless he had a majority in the Government to support him
in doing so.
Hon. Mr. WHELAN. I mean to say a word about the
amendment. You know, Mr. Chairman, that I have not
trespassed on the patience of the Committee, and you, Sir,
have exercised a degree of forbearance highly commendable
during this long debate; but it would be unwise to trespass
upon your time at this late hour with any lengthy remarks;
yet I think I should say a word or two in reference to some
remarks which have been made in this debate. Before doing
so, let me express my satisfaction at the calmness and moderation with which this
debate has been conducted. It is
certainly an improvement on the debates of last year, and
leads us to suppose that, though we are not improving very
extensively in regard to Confederation, yet we are in good
temper; but I believe we are also improving in our views of
Confederation — improving inasmuch as we admit that if the
other Provinces unite we cannot stand out. I will not trespass upon your time, but
I have a right to ask the indulgence
of this hon. Committee for five minutes to refute some observations made in opposition
to my views yesterday evening
and to-day. Yesterday evening in particular, I was assailed
by my hon. friend from Cascumpee (Mr. Howlan) on the
ground of my inconsistency in making a speech in this House,
in 1864, on this question of Confederation. But it was not
on the broad question of Confederation I then spoke, and
the hon. member knows that he did not fairly represent me.
It was in reference to a Legislative Union of the Colonies, and
he knows that I have always been opposed to a Legislative
Union.
Mr HOWLAN. I did not state anything in disparagement of the hon. member; but I showed that
the views held
by him now, were not the same as those held by him then. I
quoted this passion:—
"I care not for the nature of the Union, whether it be Federal of
Legislative, either will be absurd while we remain tied to the apron- strings of our
venerable mother—Great Britain. The time will come
when, as foreshadowed by the statesmen and politicians of Britain,
the Colonies will be cast off; and when that time shall arrive, they
may, with far more propriety than at present, discuss the principle
and details of a Union, either Federal or Legislative."
Hon. Mr. WHELAN. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to protect me in my position on the floor. I do not wish
to hinder
independent members from speaking, especially young members; and I am always willing
to give to my friend, the
junior member from prince County, a latitude which I would
not be disposed to give to others. The extract from the
speech he has read ought to be thoroughly impressed upon
my mind, inasmuch as it has been called to it so frequently.
It does not establish the proof of my inconsistency. I protest
against it. That speech will show that I was not favorably
disposed towards a Legislative Union at the time. A Federal Union is another question.
In what light did I view
it, or how was it viewed by other members of this house?- that we would still be subservient
to the Colonial Office as
we are now?—It is not that the experience I have gained- not that the intelligence
communicated to me from other
quarters—not that I am inspired by undue motives that cause
an apparent change of sentiment on my part —but that I
have a perfect right to exercise my judgment in reference to
this and other matters. But even if I admit that there was
a slight shade of inconsistency on my part, why should this
be brought up as an argument against Confederation? We
know that a great change of opinion has taken place in all the
other Colonies. Has it not been the case in Canada? And
in New Brunswick, where the Government came in with a
large majority, a little more than twelve months ago, has not
a chance taken place there? In all the other Colonies public opinion has been undergoing
a change in reference to this
question. it has changed in the Nova Scotia Legislature, inasmuch as last winter Dr.
Tupper could not venture to ask
the House to pass a Resolution in favour of Confederation,
and this year it has been carried by a majority of 31 to 19.
Does not this show that there is a change in public senti
ment?—That it is progressing with the progress of intelligence all over the Continent?
Does it not show that public
men have a right to exercise the privilege at times of correcting their ideas? I scorn
the man—I say it without disrespect to any gentleman in this House or community—I
scorn the man who says he is incapable of changing his mind
on important public questions. I change mine from time to
time, if it is in conformity with the progress of the age in
which I live. And I do not think I bring any discredit upon
myself by doing so. This has been the character by which
public men have been distinguished in Great Britain and all
over the world. I would allude to one who has changed his
opinion on this question. I mean the Hon. Mr. Howe of
Nova Scotia. He was at one time decidedly in favor of a
Confederation of all the British North American Colonies.
Now he is not. The reason why. I shall not explain to you
at present; but I believe that if he had been at the Quebec
Conference he would have acted a very different part from
what he has done.
Now, the hon. member from Cascumpee has referred to
the speech of Mr. Gladstone wherein he says—
"We are told that Canada and New Brunswick are threatened
with fire and slaughter from the revenge of the Fenians for the
wrongs inflicted by England upon Ireland; and this I must say, that
if the men of Canada and New Brunswick, who are wholly guiltless
of these wrongs—be they what they may—who are not entangled in
the controversy, who have no more to do with it than the people of
the Sandwich Islands—if the Fenians, as they call themselves in
America, are capable of the abominable wickedness of passing their
frontier and of making their impotent miserable attempts, which
they will be (cheers) to carry desolation over these peaceful districts
and among those harmless colonists, then, I say, that so far from
your treating the conduct of these men—let them be Americans or
whom they like—with allowance or indulgence, no more execrable
manifestations of folly or guilt have ever been made in the annals of
the human race from the time that it commenced its existence upon
the earth. (Cheers.) Men who are capable of such proceedings
would at once by their insanity and their guilt place themselves
entirely beyond the sympathy of the whole civilized world (Loud
cheers".)
What interpretation can the hon. member put upon these
words? Is it that of Great Britain finds the Colonies in a
position to help themselves, then the power of the British
Government will be employed to supplement their resources
for defence. Can any hon. member place any other interpretation on these words? Again,
Mr. Gladstone says in
the same speech:—
"I feel the fullest confidence that these men who inhabit the provinces of
British North America, who have proceeded from our loins, and who are
governed by principles in the mun our own, knom well how to defend their
homes, their wives, and children; and if, unhappily, the need arose,
there is no resource possessed by this country that she would not fairly
spend to assist them in their holy work. (Cheers".)
What does that indicate? A feeling on the part of the British
Government that the people of these Colonies will have to defend
their own homes, and in the event of their failing to d so then
Great Britain will withdraw her support. I will not address
myself to the questions at present as to whether we should be influenced by the opinions
of Statesmen in England or not. The hon.
member from Cascumpee gave the opinion of the British Minister;
but he did not give his words. I have given the words of Mr.
Gladstone's speech t show the connection in which they were used,
and they plainly indicate that when the Colonies use their proper
amount of influence to protect themselves, then the power of Great
Britain would be used in their behalf. That was the opinion I set
forth last year. It is borne out by the opinion of Mr. Gladstone,
and also by Her Majesty's Colonial Minister. I will read an extract
from the Colonial Minister's despatch, not only for the information
of the hon. member from Cascumpee, but other members who may
have forgotten it:—
"But there is one consideration which Her Majesty's Government
feel it more especially their duty to press upon the Legislature of
Nova Scotia. Looking to the determination which this country has
ever exhibited to regard the defence of the colonies as a matter of
Imperial concern, the colonies must recognize a right and even
acknowledge an obligation incumbent on the House Government to
urge with earnestness and just authority the measure which they
consider most expedient on the part of the colonists, with a view to
their own defence.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
121
"Nor can it be doubtful that the Provinces of British North America are incapable,
when separate and divided from each other, of
making those just and efficient preparations for national defence
which would be easily undertaken by a Province uniting in itself all
the population and the resources of the whole."
Now, what lesson are we to take from these words? Is it not
that the Colonies must accept the Imperial policy? Is it not that
one Colony will not be allowed to stand int he way of the Imperial
policy which will be found acceptable to the majority? Is it not
clear that the whole question of Confederation, no matter what
view we may take, depends on the action of the continental Provinces. I am sure that
I am quite willing to stand up for our
rights and privileges; but is it to be supposed that we will be allowed to be regarded
by the British Government as obstructive to
the Continental Provinces, if they choose to adopt a Scheme of
Confederation? I think not. Others may think differently, and
we may agree to differ. My opinion is that if Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Canada and Newfoundland, unite, Prince Edward
Island may hold out for a short time, and seek for better terms;
but it cannot hold out long. The Quebec Scheme is not before
the Committee, and it is unfair to argue upon that Scheme. If it
were before us then I might express my opinion upon it.
Hon. Mr. WHELAN: No, there is not plan at all; and the bare
question is whether it is desirable that the Colonies should be confederated or not.
I do not press it upon the people's attention
now, and when I was at Quebec I thought some of the details
were such as the people would be dissatisfied with.
Hon. Mr. WHELAN: I propounded none. It was not my
place to do so. I was there as a delegate, and though I objected
to some of the details, yet I felt myself in that position that I could
not refuse to accept it as a compromise. The delegates from all
the Provinces had complaints to make about it; and who, pray,
in his sense would suppose that a written Constitution could be
framed that would be acceptable to all the people concerned in
it? Could it be possible that a Constitution, affecting the rights
of nearly four million sof people would be so framed that no fault
could be found with it? When it came up that the Constitution
was to be framed on the principles of representation by population,
I had to yield to the majority. Now, though perhaps I am trespassing in making these
observations at this late hour. I would,
before sitting down, ask the question of the hon. member from
Murray Harbour (Mr. Duncan) whether he really believed what
he said when he declared that this Resolution would give the Government authority
to send a Delegation to England without the
people being first consulted? But I believe he is not in his place/
There is no mistaking the language of the Resolution; and no
language could be more moderate. I believe it will be considered
by a succeeding House that Confederation will be for the benefit
of all the Colonies, and that it would be possible to frame a Constitution that would
not involve the sacrifice of any material interests on the part of any Province. Can
any body doubt for a
moment that a plan might be devised which would not involve the
sacrifice of the interests of Prince Edward Island? Are we to be
for ever excluded from what the Continental Provinces consider a
benefit? Well, I cannot congratulate these members who think
we should remain forever in our present feeble, isolated position/ It
would render us contemptible to pass a Resolution to that effect. The
amendment says:—" This House believes that a plan for Confederation might be so framed
as to not involve the sacrifice of any
material interests on the part of any Province." Who is to deny
that? The Hon. the Leader of the Government, in the course of
his speech, made some reference to this paragraph, and said those
who believed that Confederation would be a benefit to this Colony
should use their influence in every way to press it upon the people.
I do not think so. I think it would be unwise to force public
attention to anything in which the minds of the people have not
been properly schooled. I think it would be better to leave it to
take its course, and let the hand of time use its ameliorating influence in reference
to this as well as every other question. I bow to
the public opinion of this country in reference to all public questions.
When I returned from Canada, in 1864, I called meetings and told
my constituents the opinion I entertained, and which I will probably entertain as
long as I love; but I told them that I would not
seek to force it upon them. This is the proper course for a
representative of the people to take I conceive that a spirited
man, like the Hon. The Leader of the Government, may sometimes
seek to control public opinion; but let him take this advice:
the better way is to follow public opinion while he seeks to
control it. The hon. member from Murray Harbor (Mr. Duncan )
alludes to the great sacrifice of having our rights and privileges
destroyed, and it sounds strange from gentlemen who, up to
1851, were opposed to what they now term a "priceless Constitution." It sounds strange,
I say, that gentlemen should now
value that Constitution so highly, whip, up that that time, had no
faith in it.
Hon. Mr. WHELAN: I am speaking in reference to the party,
and particularly in reference to the Hon. member from Murray
Harbour; for I remember that no gentleman was more disposed
than he to use his influence to oppose the introduction of Responsible Government.
Does it not sound strange that a gentleman
should have worked himself up to the consciousness of the "priceless blessing of our
Constitution," just at this particular hour, when
a few years ago he was fighting against it most indignantly? But,
as he is not in his place, I will not press my observations against
him. In reference to the original Resolutions, if we put them
upon record we place ourselves in the most extraordinary position
that ever a Colony occupied. They say that Prince Edward
Island will not have anything to do with Confederation—that we
will not accept it on any terms—no matter how advantageous
they might be to the people. The words of the Resolution cannot
bear any other interpretation. I am not wedded to any particular
scheme of Confederation, but to the principle. I will not occupy
further the time of the Committee at this late hour, now close
upon mid-night. I did not hear all the arguments used before this
Committee to-day. but I can hear testimony to the good spirit and
feeling which has characterized this debate; and if anything has
been gained it has been by the moderation of those who have not
pressed unduly upon the attention of this House.
The question was then put on the amendment, and the Committee divided:—
Y E A S: Honorables E. Whelan, Sol. General, Col. Gray, D.
Davies, Dr. Kaye, Messrs. Green and Maclennan—7
N A Y S: Honorables J.C. Pope, J. Warburton, J Hensley, E.
Maceachen, E. Thornton, F. Kelly, J Longworth, A. Laird, G.
Coles, Messrs. Conroy, Howlan, Sinclair, Sutherland, Duncan,
Howat, J. Yeo, D. Ramsay, F. St. C. Brecken, D. Montgomery,
W. Haslam, and R. Walker—21
The question was then put on the original Resolutions, which
were agreed to on a division the same as that above given—the
Yeas for the amendment being taken as the Nays against the Resolutions, and the Nays against the amendment, as the Yeas for the
Resolution.
Mr. Sinclair then rose in his place, and move the following
Resolution, for the purpose, he said, of fortifying the Government
with an opinion of the House against any attempts which might
be made to induce them to appoint a Delegation to the projected
London Convention for the final consideration of the Report of the
Quebec Conference of 1864.
"RESOLVED, that inasmuch as there will be a General Election
this summer, it is therefore inexpedient to appoint any further Delegation on the
subject of Colonial Union or Confederation, or to take
any action calculated to commit the people of this Colony to any
Scheme of Union until authorized by the people and sanctioned by
their Representatives returned at the said General Election."
The Resolution was seconded by the Hon. Mr. Kelly, and then
a short discussion ensued, in which it was argued on the Government side of the House,
that the adoption of such a restrictive
course would be tantamount to a direct expression of a want of
confidence in the Government, and would, in fact, be an imposition
of an unconstitutional restriction upon the Administration.
The hon. members who spoke in favor of it, were Mr. Sinclair,
and the Hon. Mr. Coles; they who spoke against it, were the Hon.
J. C. Pope, Hon. J. Longworth, and Hon. E. Whelan. The
question having bee put thereon, it was negatived on the following division:
Y E A S: Messrs. Sinclair, Conroy, Howlan,Walker, Sutherland,
Howat; Hons. F. Kelly, J. Hensly, G. Coles, J. Warburton, E.
Thornton, A. Laird,—12.
N A Y S: Hons. E. WHelan, Sol. General, D. Kaye, E. Maceachen,
D. Davies, J. Longworth, J.C. Pope, J. H. Gray; Messrs. Green,
D. Duncan, Maclennan, J. Yeo, Brecken, Montgomery, Haslain,
Ramsay,—16.
Adjourned.
Cet individu a participé aux :
