Document Information

Date: 1868-04-06
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1st Parl, 1st Sess, 1868 at 466-475.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

NOVA SCOTA—REPEAL—DR. TUPPER

Hugh McDonald [Antigonish] moved for a copy of the address of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, praying for the repeal of so much of the British North America Act as

[Page 467]

refers to that Province, with the Government instruction to Dr. Tupper for his guidance in England. The honourable member addressed the House, advocating that the Government should declare their policy on this very important question of repeal, which vitally affected one of the Provinces of the Dominion—Nova Scotia. That Province has sent a deputation to England. The Government of the Dominion had sent a commissioner to thwart the wishes of that colony, and Dr. Tupper, the envoy of the Dominion, was one who totally misrepresented the wishes or feelings of Nova Scotia.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston] said there was no objection to the address if the wording of the motion were altered so as to pray His Excellency to procure a copy of the address in question, as it was quite possible he had not copies of it when placed in his hands for transmission to England.

The motion was altered to meet this suggestion.

Stewart Campbell [Guysborough] suggested that the honourable member for Antigonish should add to his motion a request for the resolution on which the address had been founded.

Hugh McDonald [Antigonish] would not do so.

Stewart Campbell [Guysborough], seconded by Mr. McGee, moved in amendment that the words “resolution on which the address was founded”, be added to the motion.

Thomas Parker [Wellington Centre] rose to move an amendment of which he had given notice, relative to the recall of Dr. Tupper. He was a man utterly disqualified for being a representative of the Dominion, and sending him home only deepened the disaffection of the sister Province of Nova Scotia. The question now was whether this disaffection should be allowed to go on and spread to a dangerous extent, or whether efforts should be made such as would tend to give confidence to the people of Nova Scotia that their interests were not overlooked. If really the Government desired to extinguish instead of fanning the flame of discontent, then it seemed to him they should undo that which they had hastily and ill-advisedly done, and recall their Commissioner. As Tupper was unpopular in Nova Scotia, so would the Government that sent him to England be. The dislike now evinced to Dr. Tupper would undoubtedly be transferred to the Government of the Dominion. These gentlemen had to thank themselves, for from first to last their policy had been one of shift and expediency and miserable blundering, so that now that Ministerial party which went to the polls as the Union party was really a disunion party; one whose blundering and incapacity had already done much to destroy the unity and prospects of the Dominion. Not only were the most influential representatives of Nova Scotia treated contemptuously by the Government in that House, but the Government by their tariffs, and other means still further alienated that Province. Step by step the present Government had pursued a course inimical and dangerous to the Union. Then came the crowning act of folly in the appointment of the honourable member for Cumberland as Commissioner to England. Now, he hardly believed that as a question of right and a question of policy, the Government of the Dominion should not have interfered. The question at issue was one at this stage solely between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Imperial Government. As to the appointment of Dr. Tupper, it was one in which the Minister of Militia did not seem altogether to coincide. It appeared to have been the work of the leader of the Government, and since it had been decided on, it was a pity the precaution taken by the Minister of Militia to join the member for Sherbrooke with the mission, was not acted on. The motion he desired to move in amendment was that it be added to the resolution that in the opinion of this House the appointment of Hon. Dr. Tupper, C.B., as representative of this Dominion in England, in opposition to the delegation sent from Nova Scotia to lay their grievances before the Imperial authorities, is calculated to increase the existing discontent of that Province, and that an address be presented to His Excellency praying the recall of Dr. Tupper.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay] seconded the motion.

Charles Magill [Hamilton] said if he had been an opponent of Confederation he would support this amendment, but as a supporter of the Act of Union he felt bound to oppose it. He considered that no insult had been offered to Nova Scotia in the appointment of Dr. Tupper, who had been compared to the last rose of summer, and who, carrying out the simile, still remained blooming after the desertion of his companions. (Laughter). He believed that, on refection, Nova Scotia would reconsider her position, and become eventually as staunch a component of Confederation as Quebec or Ontario.

David Thompson [Haldimand] asked whether the Government intended to introduce a

[Page 468]

measure to remove the tolls from the Burlington Bay Canal, amid universal and prolonged merriment.

MR. McGEE’S LAST SPEECH

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West] I took objection, sir, this afternoon to the motion which has stood for some days in the name of the honourable member for Wellington Centre, and which has now been introduced as an amendment, being taken up out of order. I did so, as I stated then, believing that such a discussion as it was likely to occasion would not be conducive to the peaceful interests of the country, and the objection which I raised has been sustained. That objection was made as much in the interest of the honourable member himself as of any other of this country. And had he but availed himself of the interval which had thus been offered him for the exercise of reflection, and decided not to throw himself, as he has now done, into this Nova Scotia quarrel, I believe sir, that, in after years, he would not have failed to acknowledge the service which I had rendered him. I believe that the honourable member, although he had spent some time previously in opposing Confederation, came from the hustings as a “fair trial man”-one of those pledged at his election to give the new system a fair trial-and how is he fulfilling that pledge? He is seeking for subjects of irritation, and not finding it advisable openly to oppose the principles of Union here, loses no opportunity to strike below the belt-to deal a stab in the dark—and it is time now that the mask should be torn from his face. In the honourable profession to which he belongs there are certain applications in use, known to the faculty as emollients. If, in the exercise of the duties of that honourable profession, he makes such liberal emollient use of vinegar and gall as he here employs towards Confederation, all I can say is that his unlucky patients are sincerely to be pitied. The honourable gentleman had affected to be a convert to Confederation. If he had been really a convert, he would be prepared even at the eleventh hour-even at the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute-to give the new system a fair trial. If he had been earnest in his professions of desire for the success of Confederation he might have said, “I do not think Dr. Tupper was the best choice for this mission, but, since he has gone, I wish him all success for the sake of the welfare of the Union.” If he thinks it necessary at all to go into the matter of the appointment of a gentleman to watch the interests of the Dominion in this matter of repeal, he might be expected to do so in some such spirit, and to discuss it in some such tone. He knows well that no good can possibly result from such a motion at such a time; he knows well that the motion must certainly miscarry; and he knows well that if it were possible for it to be adopted, the recall of Dr. Tupper would have no appreciable effect in the conciliation of Nova Scotia. Why, Sir, it would be only the abstraction of a thimble full from the bucket of her discontentment. The dissatisfaction with the Union which un- happily prevails among a considerable portion of the people there is founded on other grounds than Dr. Tupper’s appointment, and has existed long previously. It is a family matter which it is the right to leave within the family; and it is for this reason that none other than a Nova Scotian could have been judiciously chosen for the mission. There are not many in this House, not Nova Scotians, who know much about Nova Scotia, and why not leave Nova Scotians to meet Nova Scotians on their own ground? Dr. Tupper’s character has been assailed, and he himself personally maligned, and it is due to him that he should be placed in a position to justify his conduct, with regard to the part he had taken towards obtaining that Imperial Act of legislation by which the Union had been established. It has been charged against him that he has lost the confidence of his own people. Sir, I hope that in this House mere temporary or local popularity will never be made the test by which to measure the worth or efficiency of a public servant. (Hear, hear). He, Sir, who builds upon popularity builds upon a shifting sand. He who rests simply on popularity, and who will risk the right in hunting after popularity, will soon find the object he pursues slip away from him. It is, Sir, in my humble opinion, the leader of a forlorn hope who is ready to meet and stem the tide of temporary unpopularity, who is prepared, if needs be, to sacrifice himself in defence of the principles which he has adopted as those of truth-who shows us that he is ready not only to triumph with his principles, but even to suffer for his principles-who has proved himself, above all others, worthy of peculiar honour. (Applause). It would show but a base spirit to sacrifice the man who had sacrificed himself for the Union. Nothing in this appointment has so greatly pleased me as the chivalry of spirit by which it has been dictated, and in which the honourable and

[Page 469]

learned Knight at the head of the Government has defended the honourable member for Cumberland in his absence. (Hear, hear). I think, Sir, that it is a pity that our Nova Scotia friends have not yet been able to make up their minds to give the scheme of Union a fair trial-that they have not consented to allow it to work untrammelled-that they have not been contented to watch its natural revolution in its appointed orbit unchecked by any stumbling block of their placing. For their own sakes-for the sakes of their ancient and renowned loyalty of their Province -I regret the course they have chosen. The Repeal address which the popular branch of their Legislature has adopted, and a copy of which is asked for in the motion now before us is too schoolboy a performance to prove creditable to Nova Scotia on the journals of this House, if it is to be entered there. It is unworthy of that Province which has produced so illustrious an array of men of eminence-men whom we respect not only as lawyers of excellence, but also as acknowledged masters of English composition. It is a document at once ill-considered and fallacious-the production of empiric politicians-and, while we admit the discredit which its publication will attach to Nova Scotia, we must remember that any shortcoming on her part will reflect some portion of its discredit upon ourselves also, recollecting that whatever reputation is achieved by British Americans abroad, will be made applicable to every section of the whole Dominion. The propositions which the address enunciates are of two classes: firstly, statements of opinion or conclusions of argument, which I, Sir, for one, maintain to be unsound; and secondly, allegations of fact, which, in many instances, I know to be incorrect. And I say that it is not creditable to the author of that address to hear the tone in which he speaks of the administration of our institutions, and stigmatizes the Lieutenant-Governors who rule these Provinces as the mere tools of the Canadian Government, while he brands the Senators of his own Province as hirelings purchased to carry out the Union. It is not creditable that such a charge should have been brought by Nova Scotians against Nova Scotians. The address complains generally of injuries supposed to have been inflicted upon Nova Scotia by the old Province of Canada, and charged our statesmen with having juggled Nova Scotia out of her liberties. Such allegations, or any allegations of the existence of any quarrel between Nova Scotia and Canada, are totally groundless. The address totally misstates the question. The quarrel, if any quarrel there be, rests between Nova Scotia and the British Empire, from whose power the Act of Union alone derives its authority. And I think, Sir, without any disrespect to that Province, that, in any controversy with the British Empire, even the most patriotic Nova Scotian will admit himself overmatched, in his attempt to limit the power of British influence. The Nova Scotian complaints divide themselves under two heads. A portion of them may be within the power of this House to remedy, and a portion of them are not so, but rest entirely with the Imperial Parliament. With the latter we have no concern, but as regards our own share, I am sure that this House has no disposition to act in any spirit of un- fairness. (Hear, hear). It may be that there are some grounds of complaint with regard to some of the legislation of the early part of the session, and that, in such minor matters as the newspaper postage and certain tariff impositions, Nova Scotia may have some grounds for remonstrance, but so long as these points admit of modification or adjustment there will be no danger of its denial here. Whenever, Sir, the Nova Scotian case on these issues, is presented fairly and calmly, it will find an amount of support here which will leave none of its advocates ground for complaint that the voice of Nova Scotia demanding justice is not fairly listened to within these walls. Then as now, and in that case as in every case, the representatives of Nova Scotia will find all parties in this House united in the desire of doing justice to their Province. And, Sir, I am sure that not one of them will deny to-day that the same justice has been meted out to themselves as to all other portions of the Dominion, or that fear, favour or affection for any individual localities has been evidenced in the Government of the Confederation. But Nova Scotia must only ask us to consider these subjects from a broad national point of view, and to deal with herself, not with exceptional partiality, but in the same spirit of even-handed fairness which we extended equally to Quebec, Ontario, or New Brunswick. And here, Sir, I cannot withhold my acknowledgement of respectful appreciation of the moderate and large-minded, and truly national spirit, in which the honourable member for Lambton, the leader of the largest section of the Opposition, has approached and has dealt with all these great questions affecting the

[Page 470]

carrying out, and the maintenance and the welfare of the Union. All that can be justly required on the part of Nova Scotia, is that the opinions of her representatives, expressed in this Legislature here, shall carry with them their duly proportionate weight, and I have only to regret that gentlemen opposite should have taken their stand upon a platform so ultramontane as to forbid approach by any well wisher of the Union. If there is to be any satisfactory cooperation upon the subjects in which they are most deeply interested, they must endeavour to modify the extremeness of their views-not necessarily to compel them to a coincidence with ours, but at least to present them, where alone argument or comparison can be possible, in the same plane. In the attitude they have taken the first advances towards mutual political amity must come from them, and these advances will be, I shall venture to assert for all on our side, frankly and fairly responded to. I hold, Sir, in my hands a little volume, a pamphlet which has been very recently issued, but which I shall take the liberty of recommending to every member of this House, as well worthy of his attentive perusal. It is entitled “Intercolonial Trade -Our Only Safeguard against Disunion.” Its author is Mr. Haliburton, whose happy manner of treating his important subject displays the great ability hereditary in his name. Mr. Haliburton is not, I believe, actively mixed up with politics, and undoubtedly handles his topic in no merely party style. From this reason alone the conclusions from his disinterested, impartial and unimpassioned point of view, adopted and published in the interests of the permanent prosperity of the country, must be regarded of greater weight, and of greater soundness, than those of the framers of this address, which can work but a temporary mischief. And this pamphlet shows conclusively, beyond doubt or cavil, that ought indeed to be sufficiently obvious to us all-that the Union is not to be consolidated by any temporary conciliating concessions to evanescent popular prejudice-not by any momentary humouring, in this direction or in that, of some particular local or sectional phase of public opinion-but by our constant, earnest and unremitting care of the commercial welfare and progress of the Province. And besides this attention and practical consideration we need, above everything else, the healing influence of time. I have, Sir, great reliance on the mellowing effects of time. It is not only the lime, and the sand, and the hair, and the mortar, but the time which has been taken to temper it. And if time be so necessary an element in so rudimentary a process as the mixing of mortar, of how much greater importance must it be in the work of consolidating the Confederation of these Provinces. Time, Sir, will heal all existing irritations; time will mellow and refine all points of contrast that seem so harsh to-day; time will come to the aid of the pervading principles of impartial justice, which happily permeates the whole land. By and by Time will show us the Constitution of this Dominion as much cherished in the hearts of the people of all its Provinces, not excepting Nova Scotia, as is the British Constitution itself. And I do not despair, with the assistance of Time, of seeing by and by the honourable member for Lunenburg himself converted into the heartiest supporter of Union within these walls, willing and anxious to perpetuate the system which he will find to work so advantageously for his own Province, and adopting the position of the honourable member for Guysboro’ as that of the true and patriotic stateman. I will not, Sir, believe that such anticipations are il founded, for I can find their precedent even in the history of Nova Scotia herself. When Cape Breton was annexed to Nova Scotia-annexed not by any Act of Parliament, but simply by an order of the King in Council, the people were so strongly opposed to the Union that they almost threatened rebellion. Well, Sir, this took place so lately as 1820, and already time has brought with its certain healing operation, and there is no question raised now of the advantages which the Union has conferred. There is no such question, because there has been no consequent injustice. The incorporated people have found that there is no desire to rob them of their liberties, and no disposition to treat them with unfairness. They see, what time shows them, that the Union was affected for their advantage, as well as that of their neighbours, and they are satisfied, because they find it working for both. And, Sir, I have every confidence that we will similarly wear out Nova Scotian hostility by the unfailing exercise and exhibition of a high-minded spirit of fair play. It has been said that the interests of Canada are diametrically opposed to the interests of Nova Scotia, but I ask which of the parties to the partnership has most interests in its successful conduct, or has most to fear from the failure which the

[Page 471]

misfortunes or the losses of any of its members must occasion. Would it not be we who have embarked the largest share of the capital of Confederation? Our friends, Sir, need have no fear but that that Confederation will ever be administered with serene and even justice. To its whole history, from its earliest inception to its final triumphant consummation, no stigma can be attached, no stain attributed. Its single aim from the beginning has been to consolidate the extent of British North America with the utmost regard to the independent powers and privileges of each Province, and I, Sir, who have been, and who am still, its warm and earnest advocate, speak here not as the representative of any race, or of any Province, but as thoroughly and emphatically a Canadian, ready and bound to recognize the claims, if any, of my Canadian fellow subjects, from the farthest east to the farthest west, equally as those of my nearest neighbour, or of the friend who proposed me on the hustings. (Great applause).

James Young [Waterloo South] derided the practice of crying “peace, peace, where there is no peace,” and asserting that the Union was really in danger, after repudiating with indignation the charge of disloyalty which had been so unjustly brought against his party, gave his opinion that the object of the amendment was one of conciliation, not agitation. (Hear, hear.) The result of sending Dr. Tupper home would be to impress Nova Scotia that we were to reap so great a benefit from the Confederation as to be determined to carry it through with or without the popular consent. (Hear, hear.) These principles were not, he maintained, prevalent in the West, which had never expected pecuniary advantage, nor contemplated an unwilling Union. He held that the Government should have sent home no envoy whatever, and last of all him whom they had chosen. They should have remembered that the Union had been carried, not by them, but by the Imperial authorities, and should have left the question unbiassed between Nova Scotia and the Mother Country, The honourable member for Montreal West had deprecated the interference of Dr. Parker in a controversy beyond his Province, but he should have carried his argument further, and should have regretted that the Government had not followed the abstinence he had recommended to the member for Wellington, and refrained from mixing themselves with affairs in which they had no right to meddle. It had been said that Dr. Tupper should not be sacrificed because he was unpopular, but, although lie could not understand how his new appointment to this mission would have involved his sacrifice, lie held that personal considerations could not be justly permitted to outweigh national necessities, and added that he believed the Nova Scotia sentiment was directed less against Union principles than against the present administration, against whom such accusations of extravagance and even corruption had been credited as might convince their patriotism of the evil resulting to the Confederation from their retention of the reins of power. He could not comprehend the wisdom of imitating the ostrich in its efforts to persuade itself that no danger existed near it, and concluded by asserting that the most earnest and delicate efforts at conciliation could alone preserve the Union.

Edmund McDonald [Lunenburg] said he occupied a different standpoint from the mover of the amendment (Dr. Parker). That gentle- man spoke as a friend of the Union. He (Mr. McDonald) made no such profession. He would rather not have taken part in this debate, for it was a matter of indifference to him whether Dr. Tupper went on this mission or stayed, lie and his colleagues were here because the law compelled them to come here, and they wished to have so much of that law repealed as compelled their attendance, and the people of Nova Scotia left as they were before-the controllers of their own political and commercial destinies. He proceeded to refer to Mr. McGee’s attack on the address which had emanated from the Local Parliament of Nova Scotia, and on the members who framed it. These gentlemen might not have the literary and logical ability which would satisfy the fastidious taste of the member for West Montreal, but they had this merit, at least, that they represented the sentiments and opinions of their people. He was not surprised the honourable gentleman should have spoken in the way le did of the absent when he remembered how valiantly on a former occasion lie made it impossible for a gentleman in this House whom he had attacked somewhat warmly to reply to him. The member for West Montreal had stated that time would heal their irritation. He would ask was Ireland more conciliated at this hour than when she was united to England? The honourable gentleman indicated his opinion that the tariff of last December should be modified; but this would be done

[Page 472]

not because the House would consider it right to be done, but because it would consider it dangerous to the peace of the Dominion that it should remain undone. But suppose that legislation was altered on account of the feeling now prevailing in Nova Scotia, what guarantee was there that a few years afterwards, when there was not the same excited feeling to deal with, the House would not perpetrate the same injustice? He did not think Nova Scotia would be diverted from her course by this talk about conciliation, and he ,would ask if the Government had really desired to conciliate Nova Scotia, was Dr. Tupper the man they would have sent on this mission? When the Government continued week after week to perform acts of this sort, insulting to Nova Scotia, they need not be surprised if the day was not far distant when the feelings of that Province would be manifested in a way little calculated to promote the peace and harmony of the country, and which would cause the Government of the Dominion to regret that they had not been a little more cautious. He should vote for the amendment, although he must again repeat that he regretted the necessity which had compelled him to take part in the debate.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West] gave some explanations in reply to the charge made by the last speaker, that he had acted unfairly towards the Hon. Joseph Howe in the early part of the session. He said he had given notice to Mr. Howe that he was to refer to him in the course of his speech, but that gentleman said he was going to a club dinner, but a friend would take any notes of the speech that were necessary.

Malcolm Cameron [Huron South] would not have risen to speak at that late hour, but that he intended on that occasion to separate himself from the honourable gentleman on that side of the House with whom he usually acted. He thought it an extreme and uncalled for course to urge on the Government the recall of Dr. Tupper, a man who was not only talented, but one of the most upright and able who could be sent on a mission of this kind. He was not the best man who might have been chosen, but the constitutional way is that such appointments as these are the exclusive prerogative of the Crown, and unless in a case of flagrant corruption, or a job the House of Commons would not be justified in opposing such an appointment. In his (Mr. Cameron’s) opinion, no such case had been made out by the member for Centre Wellington. That member had altogether failed to establish such a case as should induce the House to take the extraordinary step of asking that the envoy of the Government be recalled. He could not, therefore, vote for the amendment; but he hoped this matter would teach the Government the necessity of a conciliatory policy toward Nova Scotia—a course very different from that they had hitherto pursued.

Alexander Morris [Lanark South] raised a point of order, stating that the amendment, if added to the original resolution, would not be consistent with itself. The 1st clause of the original resolution re- quests a copy of the address to the Imperial Parliament, and of the instructions to Dr. Tupper, and then the amendment goes on to express an opinion on the delegate sent, and finally winds up by another prayer for an address praying the recall of Dr. Tupper. Now, the resolution, as thus drawn, was altogether inconsistent with itself.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay] was bound to say that he thought the point of order well taken. He had allowed his name to be used as the seconder of the motion of the member for Centre Wellington, as it stood some days ago; but in tacking it on to the motion before the House that honourable member had not used due caution, and hence it stood liable to the objection which had been raised.

The Speaker ruled that the motion in amendment was in order.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East] suggested that the member for Centre Wellington should withdraw his amendment, as in the event of its being lost it killed off the motion of the honourable member for Guysboro’ too.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] also recommended that the amendment be withdrawn, and let the matter it treated come up at a future time as a substantive motion.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke] hoped, too, that the honourable member would withdraw his amendment. He (Mr. Galt) thought he would have been glad to be associated with a man of Dr. Tupper’s abilities on any other mission, yet would not wish to be his associate in a mission which would not probably tend to the advantage of the country. He did not think the mission a well timed one, though it was determined on with the best intent. But now that Dr. Tupper had gone, it would be unwise to recall him. For his (Mr. Galt’s) part, he felt all along that the hearty cooperation of Nova Scotia must be secured to the Dominion, or else

[Page 473]

Confederation would be a failure. The opposition in Nova Scotia he believed to be rather sentimental than real. But still, it was highly desirable that nothing should be done that could possibly be avoided to intensify their feelings. He sincerely hoped that the Imperial Government, resting their decision in this matter on the interests of the Empire, would not in listening to the temporary ebullition of discontent embodied in the resolution, do anything which would lead to a dissolution of the Union. There was nothing more certain than that the moment this Dominion was found to be a failure, the moment it became dismembered. That moment the last hope of a separate national existence for Canada was at an end, and they must look forward to gravitating into the neighbouring Republic. The feeling of the House towards Nova Scotia was that of desiring to do them justice. There was not the slightest intention on the part of the people or representatives of the Dominion to do injustice to Nova Scotia, and he trusted the people of that Province would discard such prejudices. He trusted the amendment would be withdrawn. It was one which must be treated by the House as one of non-confidence in the Ministry. He would vote against the amendment, because he did not believe it was one for the interests of the Dominion.

Francis Jones [Leeds North and Grenville North], altogether repudiated the notion of the member for Sherbrooke that if the Dominion were a failure it must end in the absorption of the Provinces by the United States. That in any such event as Nova Scotia leaving the Confederacy, the Provinces must gravitate towards the United States was an extremely dangerous doctrine for any member of that House to announce, and especially one occupying the prominent position of the member for Sherbrooke. When the Provinces were all disunited, he (Mr. Jones) did not know that any such feeling had ever prevailed. Even Nova Scotia, when she had her own Legislature was loyal, and he would say that even if Nova Scotia went, and there was every appearance of it, still, that would lead to no such event as annexation; and it was unwise in any member to encourage every discontented person in this country and everywhere else who would rejoice to believe the Provinces were gravitating towards the United States. He denied that there was any such tendency in the Provinces, and as far as he could see, whether Nova Scotia went or not there would not be the slightest tendency to gravitate in the direction pointed out. No, not even if New Brunswick went too would any feeling of gravitating towards the United States be predominant; and on this point he might add that honourable gentleman spoke of conciliating Nova Scotia, but he for one would never agree for that purpose that American produce should be allowed to come into the Dominion duty free, while the people of the Dominion were shut out from the markets of the United States.

Archibald McLelan [Colchester] said the member for Sherbrooke, while condemning the appointment of Dr. Tupper, wished the amendment rejected because he did not desire to vote non-confidence in the Government. The honourable gentleman when he was so anxious to stave off a vote of non-confidence in the Government, while so often expressing his opinion against the Government, was probably only waiting till they were a little deeper in the mire. The honourable member wishes to conciliate Nova Scotia. It would be an act of conciliation to recall Dr. Tupper. The honourable gentleman said the evil was done. If he regarded it as an evil, did he wish the House to adopt the doctrine that an evil once done was not to be corrected? The member for West Montreal had charged the mover of this amendment with stabbing in the dark. He would tell the honourable member that the people of Nova Scotia regarded Dr. Tupper as having ever throughout this whole matter strick below the belt and stabbed in the dark. His appointment had deepened the feeling of hostility in Nova Scotia. As the last drop made the bucket run over, so this act might lead the people into open breaches of the peace. It had been said the quarrel of Nova Scotia was with the British Government. This was incorrect. Its quarrel was with the men who made the British Government believe the people of Nova Scotia wanted the Union. He denied that the Nova Scotia representatives had laboured to excite feelings to the Union before these acts, as it had been since. He did not approve of all the acts of Government, but when a Local Legislature attempted to break up the Union, he did approve of the act of the Government in taking measures to have the Dominion Legislature represented, and he thought Dr. Tupper was the proper person to send.

Edward Blake [Durham West] criticized the speech of the member for Montreal, and said the strongest argument it contained had been answered by the member for Sherbrooke. That argument—the only argument in his speech—was that Dr. Tupper’s personal character required vindication; that it would have been a base thing not

[Page 474]

to appoint him. Taking different ground, he attacked the member for Centre Wellington as an anti-unionist, as striking below the belt, as stabbing in the dark. To be consistent, he should apply the same language to the member for Sherbrooke. The motion embraced two propositions-that Dr. Tupper should not have been appointed, and that he should now be recalled. The member for Sherbrooke strongly supported the first of these propositions, but opposed the second. The honourable member said it was a motion of want of confidence. He (Mr. Blake) believed it would be treated in that way, and that the majority would be disposed to support the Government, not because they did not agree in the first proposition or second proposition, but because they felt the motion was a censure on the Government whom they were determined to support. With them be the responsibility. He for one was prepared to vote for the motion.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] with reference to Mr. McGee’s argument, that it was a duty the Government owed to the member for Cumberland to afford him an opportunity of vindicating himself in England, and he could not set the interests of an individual against that of a whole nation. The honourable member insisted that Dr. Tupper should not be sacrificed. He (Mr. Mackenzie) was prepared to go even further than that. He was prepared not only to sacrifice Dr. Tupper, but to sacrifice the Government and all their male relations to propitiate Nova Scotia and preserve the Union. (Laughter). This difficult question which had arisen must be met not only with conciliatory language, but with conciliatory actions. If we desired to retain Nova Scotia in the Union, we ought to remove every just ground of complaint. Mere honeyed words would effect little unless that were accompanied by actions. If it was necessary to make changes in our Legislation we should not hesitate to do so. At present, however, he did not think much practical results would be derived from discussing these difficulties, as events were transpiring in England which might materially effect the dealing with them; but so far as his voice and influence would go, he desired to urge on this question-a policy of conciliation should pervade the whole proceedings of this House and the language of all its members. None would suppose that the people of Nova Scotia would have any objection to what they would deem a just union with the other British colonies to be achieved with their own consent, and he was quite sure that in the course of a very few years we would be able so to harmonize all interests in our commercial policy and every other portion of our national policy, as to promote the prosperity of Nova Scotia, but at present we had to deal with the actual difficulty which presented itself. With this view we should remove every just ground of complaint, and if the recall of Dr. Tupper was considered in that light, we should not hesitate to recall him.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay] suggested that the amendment should be withdrawn as proposed.

Thomas Ferguson [Cardwell] objected to the withdrawal of the motion.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay] then asked in what condition was the House placed a little ago. The Minister of Militia had asked the withdrawal of the motion, and now with the management of the leader of the Government, the staunchest follower in the House of the Minister of Justice rises and objects to the withdrawal, but since the Government insisted on the vote being taken, he would move an adjournment of the debate in order that a full expression of the opinion of the House should be given on this point.

Albert Smith [Westmorland] strongly condemned the conduct of the Government on this matter.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston] repudiated the statement that he had in any way induced the member for South Simcoe to take the action he had done. It was such a statement as the member for Chateauguay was accustomed to make. It was taking such a course as had left that honourable member without a backing, without a follower, without a friend in that House. Notwithstanding years of Parliamentary experience, that honourable gentleman was without a position and was forced to cling to the skirts of the honourable member for Hochelaga. In order to show honourable gentlemen the Government did not wish to shirk the vote, he would consent to the postponement of the debate in order that the matter might be fully discussed tomorrow.

Antoine Dorion [Hochelaga] did not think there was any need for the excitement of the Minister of Justice. He was glad the adjournment had been agreed to.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] regretted the Minister of Justice should have become so excited with respect to the withdrawal. He was quite certain it was the best policy. The full discussion

[Page 475]

of this topic which must be indulged in must prove injurious to the Union, and he trusted it would be withdrawn.

Thomas Ferguson [Cardwell] said if the honourable gentleman was in earnest, he ought to have used his influence with the member for Centre Wellington to prevent the motion coming up. Besides all the harm that could be done by the discussion had been done.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay] said he had consented to the withdrawal at the suggestion of the Minister of Militia, but if the House desired it he would not object to the postponement.

Thomas Parker [Wellington Centre] said he had intended to accept the proposal of the Minister of Militia and withdraw the motion, and was not, therefore, responsible for the subsequent debate and pressing the motion to a division.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke] said on many grounds it was desirable there should be a withdrawal.

Pierre Chauveau [Quebec County] said nothing could be gained by the renewal of the debate, and he hoped the motion would be withdrawn.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] took the same view. He thought it best to leave the affairs of Nova Scotia in the hands of its people. They had not, he believed, sought the intervention of voters’ members in their affairs in this way, and he hoped the amendment would, therefore, be withdrawn.

Mr. D. A. McDonald objected to the discussion being prolonged.

Thomas Ferguson [Cardwell] said he would consent to the withdrawal if the matter were not to come up again in a substantive motion to the same effect.

Thomas Parker [Wellington Centre] said he would not bring the subject up again, if he were allowed to withdraw his motion, as that was the desire of the House.

The amendment was withdrawn and the original motion carried.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston], in accordance with a requisition sent to him, signed by a majority of the members, moved that when the House adjourned at 6 o’clock on Wednesday evening next, it stand adjourned till half-past seven o’clock p.m. on the following Tuesday. Carried.

The House adjourned at five minutes past two.