PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
43
THURSDAY, March 10.
[...]
Debate on the Draft Address resumed.
Mr. ARSENAULT said as the question
to which the paragraph referred was an
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
44
important one—one which might be
regarded as the question of the day—and
as it was expected that each member of
the committee would declare his opinion
on confederation, he would offer a few
remarks. From what he had heard, he
considered that the principle was admitted by almost every hon member who
had spoken, except the hon member for
Tyron (Mr. Howat) who had declared
himself a no-terms man, and the hon
member for Belfast (Mr. Duncan) who
had also avowed himself a no-terms
man. He (Mr. A.) supposed they might
be regardad as the political giants of the
anti-confederate ranks. While he was
not in favor of the terms offered, he was
not opposed to the principle, for were he
do say he was opposed to confederation
on any terms, to his mind it would sound
like disloyalty. (Hear from Mr. Haviland.) It was the desire of the home
government that the matter should be
fairly discussed, and in the opening
speaeh the Legislature was asked to give
a calm and deliberate consideration to
the subject. Some hon members had
attended meetings and ascertained the
opinions of the people, and formed their
views at those meetings in accordance
with the majority. His constituents had
held meetings also, and those of them
whom he heard speak upon the subject
said they would not oppose terms that
would be just and equitable ; but if his
constituents were equally divided on the
question, he would feel to be his duty
to go against it with the hope that at
some future time the people would view
the question more favorably. Some hon
members had spoken as if entering confederation would be selling our country.
He did not see it in that light. He
viewed it as an alliance, and that with
people like ourselves. Those here who
claimed to be descendants of natives of
Scotland, Ireland, England or France,
going to Canada would meet with the
same class of people, (hear) the same
customs, institutions and laws as were
here. He viewed it in the light of the
alliance of a young gentleman to a lady.
If the one was suited for the other, it
would be an advantage to both. But
one important condition was, it must be
mutual, otherwise it would be an injury,
if not the ruin of them both ; and such
were the conditions required before we
should think of joining with the Dominion. Were we to unite with Canada,
we would still have the management of
all our local affairs, but if the union was
effected against the will of the people,
the alliance would not be happy, consequently he would be sorry to give a
vote that would mar the happiness of the
country. He thought the terms we would
accept should be named, and if the
Dominion would not grant them, then
we would have a good excuse for remaining as we were ; but if we said we
would accept of no terms, he thought we
could not fairly meet the people.
Mr. ARSENAULT would not take so
much upon him. He had voted against
the government on the resolution in favor
of Mr. A. McNeill as summary reporter,
because he considered him a useful
officer. He had heard that some voted
against Mr. McNeill because he opposed
the government on confederation ; if so,
he thought it was a weak cause if it
required this action to uphold it. It had
been said that the synopsis of the debates
printed in the papers was one-sided.
The leading article in the Patriot of this
morning was so. We heard something
from the hon member for Georgetown
(Mr. McAulay) about " watching", but
he would like to know if the hon member
(Mr. Howat) was the watchman of the
House ? At all events he had told him
outside that he was watching him (Mr.
A.). He knew that the hon member for
Tryon was coming out with a long no- terms pledge. Before his constituents
he had no doubt (Mr. H.) would
take the pledge, and with them he would
leave the hon member. The government
did not say it was against fair terms, neither was he (Mr. A.)
Hon. THE SPEAKER said his hon friend
the Leader of the Opposition and himself
did not agree respecting the imports from
the Dominion yesterday. He had taken
some pains to ascertain what was exported to and imported from Canada.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
45
Hon. Mr. HAVILAND.—The hon
Speaker and he (Mr. H.) need not go
into a dispute on this question. If he
meant Canada, then he (Mr. H.) admitted he was correct, but understood
the hon member to say the Dominion.
Hon. THE SPEAKER was going to show
that the payments made to Canada, by
our merchants were, to a great extent,
made in bills of exchange, or in gold,
which, as a consequence, was drawing
from this Island the circulating medium
required at home. In 1868 our imports
from Canada amounted to ÂŁ20,486, and
our exports to ÂŁ1,095, which was all he
could find in the returns, and he wished
to ascertain how the balance had been
paid ! It must have been drawn from
the banks, and therefore had not been
paid for by articles which were the
growth and production of this Island,
hence it must have drawn away the gold
and silver required among ourselves.
The exports to the United States from
this colony in 1869 amounted to ÂŁ72,808 14s. 9d., and this had been wholly
paid for by the products of our farms
and fisheries, and undoubtedly that was
the country which best suited this colony
to trade with. If we could induce the
United States to reduce her tariff on some
of our products which suited their market, it would be of greater advantage to
us than an intercolonial free trade with
the Dominion. The United States was
a market we could not overstock, and
were it not that since the abrogation of
the Reciprocity Treaty we had the markets of Great Britain to go to, he did not
know what we would have done. If the
British Government would give us the
privilege of our own waters, and allow
us to enter into a commercial treaty with
the United States, we would, he had no
doubt, find that an arrangement could be
arrived at which would be mutually
satisfactory, and greatly to our advantage. But this Great Britain would not
allow. But he believed, on account of
our being out of the union, the United
States had and would retain a more
kindly feeling for the people of this
colony than if they formed a part of the
Dominion of Canada.
Hon. Mr. HAVILAND had misunderstood this hon the Speaker on the previous
evening. Canada was a part of the
Dominion, and so were Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick, and although the balance
of trade was against us in Canada proper,
yet it was not so in the other Provinces.
Our merchants who purchased goods in
Manchester paid for them in gold, which
they procured in Liverpool or London
for the products which find a market in
these parts ; and so was it in the Dominion. Hills in Canada were probably
paid with gold procured in Halifax.
Mr. HOWAT would ask the hon member for Egmont Bay if he had, at the
time of his election, expressed views
similar to those he had now given utterance to ! He felt that if he had, the
hon member would not have had the
trouble of stating them before this hon
committee. The hon member classed
the greater portion of the people with
himself, and stated that they admtted
the principle of confederation. This he
(Mr. H.) did not believe. The hon
member had said that the greater portion
of the committee had accepted the principle, but he (Mr. H.) would leave him
and his constituents to settle that point.
He (mr. H.) believed there were but two
classes—the no-terms men and the confederates. He did not see what grounds we
had to suppose that we could get terms
that would justify us to accept, and confederates admitted the Dominion government
had power to change the terms
when it pleased. Were we in the
Dominion, the terms granted by the
present Ottawa government might be
considered too liberal by their accessories,
who might therefore denounce them as a
species of bribery by which we had been
induced to join the Dominion. The hon
member (Mr. A.) had not the moral
courage to state the terms he would
accept. No, he was watching to see
what others would say. In regard to the
wish of the Imperial government he
(Mr. H.) was not yet certain that it had
expressed any anxiety on the subject,
and, even if it had, the Imperial Government changed also, and the next one
might be quite indifferent about the
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
46
matter. Besides, our experience in the
land question had proved to us that a
despatch was not a law. Those who
rebelled in Canada were not only forgiven, but their leaders were promoted
by the home government to positions of
honor, clearly proving that those who
resisted the Imperial will were then
right ; and it would very likely be so
with the people of this Island if they
continued to resist confederation. Could
the statesmen in England have a
correct knowledge of the position of the
people of this Island ? It was unreasonable to suppose they could. He would
admit the hon. Leader of the Opposition was an experience statesman,
yet he went to Quebec, signed the
Report there agree to, which he had
since said was unjust to this Island. He
(Mr. H.) merely mentioned this to show
that even the hon member was at that
time mistaken, and he feared was mistaken yet ; yes, and the greatest statesman
might sometimes be mistaken. He
understood the Hon. Mr. Haviland to say
the Dominion would always retain her
connexion with the old country ; then,
if so, how could she be called great until
she was independent ? There was
another point. The hon member said
that many articles upon which we had
now to pay a duty would, under union,
come in free, but would the hon member
say the Dominion Government could do
with less of a revenue than at present ?
No ! such would not be the case ; and
when all her contemplated public works
were undertaken, it would be found that
the taxes would have to be increased.
Mr. ARSENAULT said that at the last
election the hon member for Tryon had
a pledge which he desired candidates to
subscribe to ; but he believed those who
did not do so had been just an faithful to
the country as those who did. When he
was returned he was not asked to take a
pledge, nor was confederation spoken of.
He did not speak about it, nor did the
people. He supposed the
Patriot might
be regarded as the greatest anti-confederate paper in the Island, and yet it was
not opposed to terms. When the new
terms were made public, that journal
said that "they were not just and fair."
The Patriotwould, therefore, he inferred,
have supported them had he considered
them to be just and fair. It was said
the $800,000 were to be given to purchase out the lands from the proprietors,
therefore he did not see that the price of
lands would be so high if we joined the
Dominion. Our land purchase act required that each estate should be made
self-sustaining, at least as nearly so as
possible, but in the event of our going
into the Dominion and receiving that
money, he thought the lands might be
sold at a lower rate. If he was not
correct, he would like an explanation.
Hon. P. SINCLAIR said the hon. member was not correct in the view he had
taken. If the $800,000 was received,
it would be handed over to the local
Government, which would have the
management of the lands, and as there
was a law which, while it required that
each estate should, as nearly as possible,
be made self-sustaining, yet it also prohibited the Government from making
any profits on the land. He would be
sorry if any such opinions were entertained in the country, for if so they were
not correct and might do harm. But
he must say he did not for a moment
suppose that any hon. member of this
committee entertained such an opinion.
The price of the land was now reduced
to cost and charges, and if we were into
confederation the people would find that
it would not be had any lower than it
could be had now.
Mr. BRECKEN.—It was true the tenantry, even if we went into confederation, would have to pay
as high for thir
lands as they did at present. The only
difference would be that we had now to
take it out of the general revenue. If the
Dominion gave us the $800,000, it would
make no difference in so far as the price
of the land was concerned. He agreed
with the hon. member for Tryon that
there were but two alternatives—
no
terms, or terms. The hon. member was
more manly than the government which
he supported, in his views upon that
question.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
47
Mr. HOWAT said he was not a supporter of the Government.
Mr. CAMERON.—Perhaps it would be
those who were for just and equitable
terms that would, in naming them, be as
much of no-terms men as the hon.
member for Tryon. For his part, he
did not see what terms could be offered
which would be an equivalent for what
we were expected to give up. For it
would not be possible to name terms to
which some objection might not be taken.
He (Mr. Cameron) contended that this
Island was not to gain so much by the
saving of duties on importations from the
Dominion as some imagined , for the excise duties in Canada were so high that
it would necessarily keep prices up to
nearly their present rate, if not quite as
high a figure as they were now bought
at. One disadvantage would be that our
duties would be immediately raised to 15
per cent., and probably very soon to 20
per cent. Certainly we had no guarantee that such would not be the case, for
by the Imperial Act they could raise a
revenue by any modes of taxation they
might choose to adopt. The hon member
for Egmont Bay said he opposed some of
the present terms, but was willing to accept
fair terms. He believed the hon.
members who said so might be as hard to
satisfy as any of the no-terms men, for
he felt satisfied the Dominion could not
give terms that would be satisfactory, so
that the action of the fair-terms men
and the no-terms men would have the
same effect, and for that reason he would
oppose the scheme entirely. A great deal
bad been said about the railroads of
Canada and the advantages this Island
would derive from their use ; but he
might ask, would our remaining out of
confederation deprive us of such advantages. His opinion was, that by
entering into a union with Canada we
had much to dread from the construction
of the railroads and other contemplated
public works of the Dominion. Nor did
he believe the Pacific railroad would
ever prove, even if built, as beneficial
as its advocates imagined. One reason
why he thought so, was, because it would
consist of detached parts, and to show
the difficulties that had to be encountered, he thought it sufficient to state
that the route selected was 200 miles
north of a direct line, and this line had
to be chosen in order to avoid passing
through the territory of the United
States. He regarded our isolation as our
best protection, and thought we had
more to hope than to dread by remaining as were were; nor could he see
what better position the Dominion was
in, with its population of four millions,
when placed beside the United States
with her 42,000,000, than we were. As
to the great value of the North-west territory, he much doubted the correctness
of statements which had been made.
The population was only about 20,000,
and, in 1868, they were in a state of
starvation. The numerous obstacles to
be encountered and overcome would,
for a long time, continue. The country
was liable to plagues, grass-hoppers, locusts, drought and inundations, any one
of which was sufficient to destroy the
crops of the country, and frequently did
so. The country around Winnipeg had
frequently been inundated. Great portions of its crops, after droughts,
which were frequent, had also been
destroyed by fire. The argument used,
that the British government desired us
to unite with the Dominion, he regarded
as weak. Had we acted upon the expressed desire of the Home government,
he felt convinced that this Colony would
never have made an effort to have freed
itself from the hands of the proprietors,
and the tenantry to-day would still be
under them. As to our being forced into
confederation, he thought the opinion of
John Bright and other distinguished
statesmen in England, when speaking on
the Nova Scotia difficulty, supplied the
best answer to that objection. Mr.
Bright said :—"Your scheme (of confederation) must break down if the Nova
Scotians resolve they will not have it.
It is not possible to coerce them. There
is no statesman living in England who
will venture to bring about the shedding
of one drop of blood upon the continent."
And no doubt the same arguments would
be used and applied to this Island. That
was if the argument contained in the
logic of force was ever to be used. The
hon. member for Egmont Bay had drawn
a comparison between our union with
Canada and that of a party getting married. He thought the comparison would
not hold good, because there was too
great a disparity between them ; nor did
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
48
he at all think the rule would hold good
in this case, for the party wooing was
too extravagant and unequal to suit little
Prince Edward Island. With respect to
the idea that the $800,000 was to be
given to the tenantry, from whatever
source the opinion originated, he thought
it was somewhat generally believed.
But the thought it would be a long time
before that money would be received; the
promise was all we should ever obtain.
Mr. BRECKEN observed that the terms
offered to this Island were much more
favorable than those offered to Nova Scotia.
Our indebtedness was arranged on the
same principle as that of the other Provinces. They, for their debt, had handed
over to the Dominion government some
costly and valuable railroads, the construction of which had greatly increased their
liabilities; but our indebtedness was caused
mainly by the purchase of the lands of the
Colony, which would not be given up to the
Dominion government; and yet for this
debt we were credited, while we would give
no equivalent to the general government.
Yet to the extent of that indebtedness were
we offered better terms than those given to
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Hon. Mr. McAULAY admitted that the indebtedness of the Provinces was taken
equally into account, but thought it was
proper to enquire from what cause their
indebtedness arose? The other Colonies
got into debt by building railroads with
borrowed money, and in their construction
they circulated the money paid for building
them among their people so that they had
received a two-fold benefit from them,
the use of the roads and then the benefit
arising from the circulation of the money.
But how was it with us? We had the satisfaction of doing the patriotic work of buying
out our own hands, which were wrongly
given away. For the Cunard estate alone
this Colony paid ÂŁ57,000, all of which had
walked away from the country; not one
shilling if it was circulated among our people, and the same was true of other estates
which were purchased by the government
of this Island.
Mr. BRECKEN thought the fact had been
overlooked by hon. members, that while
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had built
these roads they had handed them over to the
general government, and to the use of
these, we, if in the Dominion, would have a
common right, while they cost us nothing.
Hon. COL. SECRETARY said that Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick were gainers
by handing their roads over to the general
government, for they were not paying
working expenses; and he believed there
were very few railroads that did pay the
cost of working. He was told that one of
the best lines in England--that between
Liverpool and London--would not pay, if
the traffic on it was confined to that between
the two cities alone.
Mr. BRECKEN thought the roads in New
Brunswick were paying, and even if they
were not, it would be no argument against
their construction, for they opened up the
country and aided in developing its resources. Public men did not look upon
them in the light of a paying matter but in
the broader view of the many benefits their
construction conferred upon the country.
Hon. Mr. CALLBECK--The hon. Leader
of the Opposition said he understood him
(Mr. Callbeck) to state that when the better
terms came down he had said he was prepared to accept them, but he had been
misunderstood, for, under no circumstances,
would be content to do so without submitting the matter to the people. For his
own part, he would never consent to unite
with the Dominion while it remained unconsolidated and discontented. Nova Scotia
was forced in against the will of her people;
nor could he see why it should have been kept
in, for it was never united to Canada in
accordance with the well-understood wishes
of her people. If he understood the hon.
member for Charlottetown (Mr. B.) correctly, he said if the Americans were disposed
to conquer those colonies, they could
do so, but that they would find them too
expensive to hold. But until Great Britain
gave us to understand that she would not
defend us any longer, he would feel disposed to consider that she intended to
stand by us. As to terms, he considered
that no matter what they were, it would be
found that, like water, they would eventually find their level. If we were living
in
Nova Scotia and found that this Island had
received more than a fair share of her proportions of the general revenue, he was
inclined to believe we would feel disposed to
make up the difference in some other way.
Our Province could not expect to enjoy an
advantage at the expense of others. The
hon. Leader of the Opposition said yesterday he was glad that those on his (Mr. C.'s)
side of the house had no gene into figures.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
49
Hon. Mr. HAVILAND said it would be better if hon. members would reply to statements in which they did
not concur, at the
time they were made. He (Mr. H.) alluded
to the tabular statement, and said he had
no faith in the figures, but that there were
something more grand in the question in
which, he had faith.
Hon. Mr. CALLBECK stated he had not
admitted the principle. He had said that
he considered it his duty to give proper
consideration to any proposal coming from
the British Government had frequently pledged itself to defend this
Colony, but he was not aware that this
pledge extended to the Dominion. The
inter-colonial railroad, it was said, was
being constructed more for military than
commercial purposes, hence it would be of
little commercial advantage, nor did he think
the benefits to be derived from a free trade
with the Dominion would prove as important to this Island as some supposed. He
was aware that some thought vessels would
be allowed to run from one Province to
another without having to go to a custom
house; but he found that a rule had been
laid down by which a vessel on the payment of ÂŁ5 could have a permit so to run;
but then the master had to keep a book in
which all the shipments were to be entered,
which he thought would be found a troublesome arrangement. He admitted that goods
coming in, which were the manufacture and
production of the Dominion, would pay no
duty, but doubted if they would be any
cheaper, for he noticed that a spice mill
had been put up in one of the Provinces,
and a duty of 25 per cent, was placed upon
ground spices, as a protection, he supposed,
to that mill, and, of course , spices bought
there would be that much higher than if
this duty had not been imposed. Nor could
manufactures be carried on successfully in
the Colonies unless a high protective tariff
was imposed. He was not aware that
goods of any kind could, to any extent, be
had on advantageous terms in the Dominion. A drawback on some goods could be
had, it was true, but only when the bills
amounted to a certain sum, and these purchased in one establishment. He knew if
the free list was examined carefully, it
would be seen that it was wholly limited to
articles manufactured in the Dominion.
He objected also to the representation in
the Senate. The senators in the United
States had every six years to return to their
constituents. In the Dominion, the ap
pointment was for life, and he believed they
need not, unless they chose, remain in the
Colony they represented. He knew that the
Receiver General for Nova Scotia spent a
large portion of his time in Ottawa, and
when a man had two homes it was hard to
say where his interest was. He was far from
considering that the taxation to which we
should be subjected under confederation,
ought to be considered as a bugbear, unless
it could be shown that such a corresponding value was to be received, which he
thought could not be proved in this case.
Reference had been made to salaries. He
knew Mr. Kenny received ÂŁ1,250 currency,
as Receiver General, and did not, he
thought, do as much as our Treasurer, who
held quite as responsible a position , that was
when all things were fairly considered. The
Receiver General had a staff of six clerks,
each of whom received ÂŁ500 currency a
year, and when one of these, some time ago
was found minus the funds which should
have been forthcoming he would ask if Mr.
Kenny was held responsible? Mr. Kenny
was not held accountable, hence he concluded that our Treasurer occupied a more responsible
position than that of the Receiver
General of the Dominion. It had been
said that if we desired to have faithful officials they should be well paid; but he
was
satisfied that large salaries did not always
secure a faithful discharge of duty. A large
salary not unfrequently drew men into society and expensive habits of living that
were injurious. He believed our public
officers had proved themselves as honest
and efficient as if their salaries had been
higher.
Mr. BRECKEN hoped the hon. member did
not bring that forward as an argument why
our officials should not receive a fair salary.
Hon. Mr. CALLBECK did not bring it forward as such, but for the purpose of showing that it should not
be used as an argument in favor of confederation. He knew
that the municipal taxes in Canada were
very high. He noticed that in one county
(Dundas) it was as high as one per cent,
and that a farmer whose property was
valued as being worth ÂŁ600 was assessed
ÂŁ6. It was true they lowered the tariff
from 20 to 15 per cent., but were forced to
resort to a tax upon newspapers and
other articles to make up this deficiency.
Nor could we by accepting the terms offered
expect to maintain our schools and other
public works without resorting to direct
taxation in some shape or other.
The third paragraph was then agreed to.
House adjourned for one hour.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
57
[...]
Hon. Mr. LAIRD.—The hon member
for Charlottetown had boosted of his
courage because he had expressed his
opinions freely on confederation, and
exposed himself to the attack of some
writer in the newspapers. Whether he
was pursuing a course contrary or not to
the understanding on which he was returned to this House, was a matter which
rested between him and his constituents ;
but he (Mr. L.) held that no hon member
was deserving of praise for courage in
opposing the popular voice. He (Mr. L.)
contended that when a representative of
the people had changed his opinions
through conscientious convictions, and
found he could not advocate those principles on which he was elected, his duty
was to resign his trust into the hands of
those from whom he received it. The
hon member's reference to other countries in regard to the method of supporting education
was a very poor argument
indeed. All other countries might be
wrong in this matter. We had tested
the principle in this Colony of paying
the teachers' salaries wholly from the
public chest, and we had found it to
work well ; this, therefore, was a far
better guide for us than what some great
country did, or some distinguished man
thought. He (Mr. L.) supposed the hon
member for Charlottetown had changed
his views on confederation, because some
great man was in its favor. Great men
were only but men, and often erred,
consequently we should judge for ourselves, and do what we thought was
right.
[...]
[...]
Mr. BRECKEN.—The hon. member for
Bedeque had begun his remarks by leveling
a shot at him (Mr. B.) for opposing the
popular voice. That gentleman did not
appear to understand the first principles of
politics. When a person was not prepared
to vote on a question, which had to go before the people again, he could not be
charged with betraying their trust. When
the documents came down from the Government relative to the negotiations with
the Canadian delegates, he (Mr. B.) thought
it would be found that the members of the
Executive themselves had violated their
pledges. The hon. member for Tryon had
said to-day that those who admitted the
principle of union were confederates, and
only no-terms men were anti-confederates ;
but when he did so, the hon. member for
Bedeque had not the manliness to rise and
state whether he was with his colleague or
not.
[...]
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
58
[...]
Mr. McNEILL—When this paragraph
was read he did not think it was going to
call forth such discussion. He pretty much
agreed with the views expressed by the
hon. member for Charlottetown on this
question. His own belief was that if denominational schools were to be introduced
as a part of our educational system ,we
would have to give up free schools altogether. The people of this Island had derived
great benefit from these free schools ;
and he thought it was pretty much from
their intelligence on this account that they
were opposed to confederation. 'To give
up our independence for a sum of money
would place us in a ridiculous position.
He was surprised to find men inclined to
accede to the proposal to go into union on
account of the paltry sum of $800,000.
Some advocates of confederation asked us,
if not satisfied with the offers made by
Canada, to propose terms. It was not our
place to make proposals. Great Britain
had wronged us in regard to our lands, and
it was from her that we ought to get redress. We could return this answer to
Canada, that we had no quarrel with her,
but we had a dispute with the mother
country, and we wished to have that settled first before we could entertain the
question of confederation. Look at the
case of Newfoundland; some of her politicians went up to Ottawa, received an offer
for that colony, and came back thinking
they would carry the country, but the people rejected the money with disdain. The
people of this Island, he thought, would,
treat the money offers of the Dominion
pretty much in the same manner. He observed that the Ottawa government had
advertised for six schooners to protect the
fisheries. It would, however, he feared be
poor protection. Probably the attempt
would prove something like one set on foot
here some years ago, and of which he had
heard his father speak. Two boats crews
were fitted out from Charlottetown, armed
with soythes handled so as to suit instead of.
cutlasses, and provided with liquor and
other supplies. Thus equipped, they set
sail for Souris or some place else, but he
believed that when the rum went done, they
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
59
returned home. (Laughter.) He thought
it would be pretty much the same way with
the Canadian fleet. In concluding his remarks, he would express the hope that the
people of this colony would accept of no
sum of money to enter confederation. Like
our fathers, who cleared away the forests,
we should trust in Providence, remain as
we were, and not sell our birthright.
Mr. BRECKEN would ask the hon. member
what he meant by selling our birthright ?
If he could show him (Mr. B.) that we were
going to sell our birthright by entering
confederation then he would sign the pledge
of his friend, the hon. member for Tryon.
Mr. McNEILL would answer the hon.
member for Charlottetownn. We had
cleared away the forests, made our own
roads, and paid for our lands, and if these
things did not make this country our birthright, he did not know what would.
Mr. BRECKEN—The hon. member had
made a very neat little speech. But would
confederation take away our roads or lands
from us? Â Would it prevent the sun from
shining or the rain from falling upon us, or
would it shorten our winters? Â
Mr. BRECKEN— Lengthen our winters he
should have said. Would not everything
connected with the Colony, which we had
earned or purchased, be guaranteed to us,
by fair and equitable terms?
Hon. COL. SECRETARY thought the hon.
member for Charlottetown would find that
the eyes of the city mechanics were upon
their representative. That gentleman had
referred to the educational systems of other
countries to find arguments to condemn our
own. He (Col. Sec.) could tell that hon. Â
member that the people of most European
nations would be glad to have such a school
system as was established in this Island.
The member for the City had shown tonight the old Tory principles which were
ingrained into him, when he had advocated
the sustaining of high schools ; as for the
others, which were for the good of the people, he did not appear to care whether they
went down or not. He (Col. Secretary),
contended that too great facilities to obtain
a high education were no benefit in a country where there was not scope for the em
ployment of scholars; it made men more
able to do mischief. Where there was a
number of educated persons idle about
the community, they were sure to become parasites. The hon member had
repeatedly addressed this hon. committee
on confederation, but had never once
attempted to show what advantage it would
be to the Colony. He kept putting questions
to other hon. members,but he never advanced any solid arguments himself in favor
of union.
Mr. BRECKEN.-The hon. Col. Secretary
had called him a Tory. He (Mr. B.) was
not a Tory ; but he could point out a gentlemen who was once returned to this House
by the assistance of his conservative friends ,
and after being elected jumped into the Liberal
car . The same hon. member had also left the
Executive a year or so ago, for some reason
which he had never publicly explained, and
last summer we found him again returning
to the same Executive, without his stating
that it had changed its policy, and accept- ,
ing an office for himself and getting another
for his son.
Hon. COL. SECRETARY had never deceived
the people. They knew his sentiments at
the time referred to, and he had never betrayed them. He had always been with the
people. He jumped into the Liberal car
after the election which, preceded the introduction of responsible government, and
he was proud of it.
The debate was adjourned until to-morrow.
Cet individu a participé aux :
