New Brunswick, House of Assembly, Debates of the House of Assembly [Mr. Fisher’s Amendment] (2 April 1866)
By: New Brunswick (House of Assembly)
Citation: New Brunswick, House of Assembly, Reports of the Debates of The House of Assembly  at 81-85.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
Monday, April 2.
After a number of Bills had been brought in, the House, on motion of Mr. Caie, went into Committee to take into consideration “A Bill to provide for the more effectual repair of roads and bridges in the Parishes of Carleton and Welford, in the County of Kent.” Mr. Caie, in explaining the object of the Bill, said that it was similar to one that was in operation in the Parish of Richibucto, where it had worked very well; and the inhabitants of the Parish in which he resided, were […]
- (p. 82)
[…] anxious to have the same privilege, for they thought a much larger amount of repairs would be put upon the roads under this Bill than is now done.
Mr. L.P.W. Desbrisay said he had not been instructed by his constituents in regard to this Bill. He thought the people should have some voice in the matter. It should not be made imperative that they should pay money instead of labor, without having a clause introduced that the Bill should not come into operation without a two-third’s majority of the inhabitants of the Parish were in favor of it. He thought they were not aware in the Parish of Welford that a Bill of this kind was to be submitted to the Legislature.
Mr. Caie explained that be had taken the ordinary course by advertising the Bill.
Mr. Gilbert said it was rather an arbitrary Bill, for its design was to compel the people of two Parishes to support their roads by the payment of money, whereas now it was optional with them whether they would do so or not. In the absence of any petition in favor of the Bill, and the hon. members disagreeing upon it, he would vote against it.
Mr. Williston said the people of these Parishes had every opportunity of knowing that such a Bill was to be presented, for it had been published in the local newspapers, and there being no petition against it, it was one of the strongest arguments in its faver [sic]. The principle of this Bill had been adopted in Chatham and other Parishes, and he would like to see the same principle adopted throughout the Province, as it would be a great improvement upon the presents system.
Mr. Otty also supported the Bill as it had been found to work well in other Parishes.
Mr. Kerr said this Bill was a step in the right direction, and the principle of the Bill should become the law of the Province.
Mr. Lewis was of the same opinion; by the payment of twenty-five cents for each day’s work, the roads would be kept in a better state than they now are under the present system. He would give the Bill his hearty support.
Mr. L.P.W. Desbrisay said they had better report progress in order that he might have time to learn from the inhabitants of those Parishes whether they were in favor of it or not.
Hon. Mr. Hatheway said the principle of the Bill was correct, but they should report progress, as one of the representatives for the County wished for more time. Progress was then reported.
Mr. Gilbert moved the following resolution:
Resolved, That an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, praying that His Excellency may be pleased to cause to be laid before this House a true copy of a Will on the Equity side of the Supreme Court of this Province, on the 30th day of March, 1863 by Messrs. Smith and Peck, Plaintiff’s Attorneys, wherein Sarah Bell was Plaintiff, and J. D Turner and wife, J. S. Turner. D. W. Turner, C. W Weldon, S. K. Brundage and Her Majesty’s Attorney General of this Province were defendants. Also a true copy of the decree made in such cause, dated 2d of June, 1863, and a true copy of memorandum of sale, made under such decree by Bliss, Botsford, Esq., Master, dated 18th of September, 1863; also a copy of an affidavit made by said Sarah Bell in such cause, dated the 4th day of May, 1863; also a copy of an affidavit made by R. C. Scovil, Esq., dated 2d of May, 1863, in such cause, which said several papers are on file in the office of the Clerk of said Court. Also to lay before this House a full and complete statement, showing the several amounts of moneys which this Province or the Railway Board has paid for, or on account of, premiums of insurance costs and charges of whatsoever kind and for repairs, or which have been lost on account of interest to this Province, arising from the amount so invested in such purchases by R. C. Scovil, Esq., Commissioner of Railways, in the name of Her Majesty. Said statement to be made up from the 14th day of September, 1863, the terms of such purchase to the present date, and to show the amount which such property realized at public sale, on or about the first of November, 1864, in pursuance of a resolution of this House, and to whom sold, when and how payable, and to show by such statement the nett amount of loss which accrued to this Province in consequence of such sale and purchase, and a copy of any and all authorities or documents under which said property was, on the 14th of September, 1863, purchased by the said R. C. Scovil, Railway Commissioner, for an on account and in the name of Her Majesty.
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MR. FISHER’S AMENDMENT.
Mr. Needham resumed: I shall request the indulgence of the House, in order that I may fully and fairly explain my views, and the reasons that induce me to vote as I shall vote on this question. I was asked by persons outside of this House why I did not stick to the point when speaking on this question on Saturday evening. I began to think where the point was. I called to mind the various speeches on this question, and found they had taken such a discursive range that it would be unfair not to allow me the same latitude. I shall take up the different points, and endeavour to make myself so plain that I cannot be misunderstood either in the position I assume or the principles I advocate. Before I go on to the main points, I will refer to what I passed over on Saturday, on account of my not having any notes before me, as I did not expect to speak that evening until a few moments before I arose for that purpose.
The few remarks which I will now make on that subject is for the purpose of disabusing the minds of hon. members of a wrong impression regarding the York election and its results. That election was no evidence of a change of public opinion in the County of York regarding Confederation. True, says one hon. member, it was no change of opinion on Confederation, yet it was an absolute denouncement of the present Government. This I deny, and I shall show conclusively that the York election was no denouncement of the Government as a whole. The Attorney General, at the last session of the Legislature introduced a Bill to Abolish the office of political Postmaster General. That Bill, as I understand it, contemplated nothing more than the mere doing away with that political office, and contemplated no arrangements for removing that or any other office. But the impression got abroad that it was the intention of the leader of the Government to remove that office to St. John, which rendered him very unpopular in this County. I voted against abolishing that office, not because I was a member for York, but because the measure did not accord with my views of Responsible and Departmental Government. I considered the idea of having Responsible without Departmental Government as absurd. The very moment the impression got abroad in the County of York that it was the intention to remove that office to St. John, which had caused the expenditure of twelve or fifteen hundred pounds a year in the city of Fredericton, it created a feeling of hostility to the man who tried to carry that measure. It was easy to get up this impression, and it was made a handle of at the York election. The question was a popular one in a majority of the Counties outside of the County of York; but it was unpopular there, and the election was not based upon hostility to the Government, but upon hostility to Mr. Smith, the leader of the Government, and he alone was brought into the contest. There was another influence brought to bear in this election; that was the excitement got up about Fenianism.
I do now assert—and there are thousands who will bear witness to the truth of what I say—that this cry of Fenianism was got up for an especial purpose on an especial occasion, to raise the worst feelings of our common nature. It was got up to carry the election against Mr. Pickard. This cry of Fenianism, and the opposition to the leader of the Government, was the cause of a member being returned in opposition to the Government. Confederation had nothing to do with it, for not only the candidate ignored it, but almost every canvasser; for I went through the County and heard the canvassers speak, and almost every one put forth the same cry: Timothy Anglin has challenged the Protestants, and will you succumb to him? A more infamous falsehood never was perpetrated. However unfortunate was the challenge, Mr. Anglin never challenged the Protestants of York. His challenge was to the confederates of York. He asked them would they bring out a Confederation of York in opposition to on anti Confederate. They did not, and they dare not. They brought an anti-Confederate to oppose an anti-Confederate. They brought a stronger anti-Confederate than I am myself, and this is an undeniable fact. The moment this challenge was explained, it was seen at once that this was not a religious challenge at all, but was one any man might have made.
I stated that most all the canvassers for my colleague on that occasion enunciated the same doctrine. There was one honorable exception; that was Mr. Hartley, Deputy Surveyor in Carleton. He put the question fairly on Confederation. Honor to whom honor is due. I respect my political opponent who will meet me on fair political grounds. Then we can make use of the assertion, “free stage and no favor.” Then if we are beaten, we are beaten honorably. But it was not honorable to get up this cry that religion was in danger. If it was, would it be saved by holding an election in the County. No! If it stands on that basis it is not worth having or promulgating in the world. The very moment this cry of Fenianism […]
- (p. 83)
[…] had done its work, and the election was over, the sensation telegrams ceased to arrive from Canada, New York, and other places. My hon. friend Mr. McClelan read a squib here which was published some days before the York election. I tried to get one but could not, so they could not have been very numerous in the County of York. He must have had it salted down. There were plenty of squibs in circulation on the other side, one of them speaks of Needham, Anglin and Co. I never knew of any such company.
Talk about a “hidden hand,” or slander. Was that a hit at Anglin? No! It was a hit at Needham. They were not satisfied with asserting that Anglin had challenged the Protestants of York; but they say Needham is going over to the Catholic Church, and challenges them too. A more able politician, or a more able, honest, consistent journalist never put pen to paper than Mr. Anglin, for he is honest to the core, and despises a mean, low act as much as any man. True, he has his own opinion in regard to the worship of his God, and where is the man that does not. Toleration is obliterated from the dictionary. I ask toleration from no man, and I give it to no man, for it comes from the source of our existence. I never was ashamed to let everybody know just what I believed. They know whether I am an Orangeman or a Catholic, for I never was what I would be ashamed to acknowledge. I do not mean to say that I am always right, or that I am the man pointed out in Scripture as the man that has a right to cast the first stone; but I say, when I believe a thing to be right I am not ashamed to assert it.
My hon. colleague stated on nomination day, that at the last election a great many lies were thrown broadcast over the County of York. I said more about Confederation before that election than any of my colleagues, and I challenge any one to produce one solitary false statement made by me, or one single bit of exaggeration. Can you do it? Why then did you say it? I never did on any one occasion make one assertion that was untrue, neither did I exaggerate. I did not even make the case as bad as it was. The good old Apostle Paul said he had been beaten, stricken, ship-wrecked and in prison, &c. In this respect I think he and I resemble each other. While I have not received forty stripes save one, I have been injured in a more tender part than the back, for I am, to use an expression made use of by the late Hon. J. R. Partelow, in St. John, the best abused man in the country. I take it and fight it off; yet, whenever maligned, I feel this consolation, that there is one woe pronounced in Scripture which I have never felt, that is the woe pronounced when every man speaks well of you. It is said that everything is fair in war, politics and love. I do not believe that doctrine. I do not believe my hon. colleague did right in telling the people of Keswick that the railroad would go down by the Keswick valley, and telling the people of Stanley that it would go right by there.
Another point against the Government was, that they did not call the House together before they did. This, of itself, shows the weakness of the Opposition, when they are compelled to take up a point like that. Then regarding the non-appointment of the Auditor General. The Surveyor General read you the law, which says, an Auditor General shall be appointed, or some other person. Some other person was appointed and the law was fulfilled; then that being the case, this charge also falls to the ground. Ah, says my hon. friend, the office of Auditor General is ministerial, and they can summon witnesses from any part of the country. Was it ever done? I never knew it to be done, neither has my hon. friend (Mr. F.) ever known it to be done. Then why all this prevarication. It was a mighty charge to bring against the Government, that they ought to have appointed an officer to do what never was done and never will be. They have appointed an officer to do what was essentially necessary, and I do not know but what the power invested in the Auditor General, would, by implication, be invest in the person nominated to be his deputy, he would have a right to travel and take this evidence as much as the Attorney General would.
Another point in the indictment is in regard to the sale of public lands. This point my hon. colleague touched very lightly upon. I know he does not like to hear much about it, and I do not wonder at it. I do not blame him for speculating in public lands. When the Government turned him out for this, I believe they were cowardly. Some gentlemen in that Government were deeper in the mud than he was in the mire. I heard of one member of the Government who applied for one hundred acres of land under the Labor Act, declaring he had no land in the country. Why was not that man turned out of the Government? They pronounced upon my hon. colleague and threw him overboard. They supposed that a human sacrifice would atone for the wrong done, but York County took him up and returned him at the head of the poll. I voted for him, and I did it because I thought they wronged him. I did it, because I expected that when he came here he would act a man. I did not expect he would come here and truckle to the Government and cry yes, yea, for them. I believe no wrong was done in the Crown Land transaction at all.
The same transactions had been done time after time by members of the House and the Government, and when the example was set, why should subordinates suffer for it. The only way the Government can do justice to Mr. Inches is to give him the salary which he ought to have—that is $1000 a year. It was wrong to condemn my hon. colleague and Mr. Inches, as if they had been guilty of some moral wrong, while members of the House and Government had perpetrated the same thing, and yet went scot free, because they did not do it while members of the Government. There was a charge made against the Crown Land Office that they had sold a piece of land without putting it up to public competition, but the Surveyor cleared that up to the satisfaction of the country. What did the late Tilley Government do in reference to selling lands without putting them up to public auction? Hear, mark, learn and inwardly digest it. On the 22d of May, 1857, James Buchanan prays repayment of £23 1s. 3d. expenses incurred in attempting to make a survey of Crown Land under the late Deputy Mahood’s order. To reimburse him, he was granted 192 acres of Crown Land without bringing it to public sale, and from this land $900 was received as stumpage for lumber. This is a fact which stands recorded in the Secretary’s Office, and cannot be gainsayed. Here is another case: 200,000 logs were cut by a trespasser, and notice was given to the office, and a seizing officer was directed to seize them.
Did he put them up to public competition. No! They were bought in at a private house for $1.50 per thousand. The Government was requested to prosecute the trespasser, but declined to do so. If you want any more of these operations, you can get them to any extent at the office. I only searched over a dozen to get these. I will not come back to the squib read by Mr. McClellan, in which it was stated that our taxes would increase under Confederation. I said I endorsed it, and I ask hon. members if they do not know that taxes would increase. I know who wrote it, though I did not know it at the time, and I am authorized by the gentleman who wrote it to say that not one member in York knew one word about it. What was the offence? Was it because the delegates were charged with violating the Sabbath, and signing the document on Sunday. They denied it. Was it not true? There is a delegate here, and his silence gives consent.
According to all correct theological views, it was not a work of necessity, and God knows it was not a work of charity. Then they must have been guilty of violating the moral law, and according to the doctrine laid down in Scripture, he that offendeth in one point is guilty of all, therefore they should be the last men to preach morality. I opposed this Confederation Scheme because I thought it would be injurious to New Brunswick. I urged my colleague to explain the Scheme to the people. I called a meeting and put forth my views, and the cry was, Needham wants to go to the House of Assembly. I said some others not only wanted to come here, but they wanted to go to the far off Ottawa. I told the anti-Confederates, when they were making up their ticket, to leave me out, and I would go through the Country, and do as much for the party as I possibly could. I did not know I was on the ticket until I was sent for. I attended none of the caucuses, but I was in earnest and sincere in my endeavors to kill the monster, and I did not care who aided and helped me so long as I did kill him. If I did not kill him, I wounded him, and he is bleeding and will bleed to death, for die he must and die he shall. We may talk about Confederation or not as we like, but we may be assured that Confederation under the Quebec Scheme will never take place; this may be strong language, but it is true.
We are told that we anti-Confederates are all disloyal men—that we oppose the Queen. We are told this by the men who bow the knee to the image—not of Baal—but to Mr. Cardwell. This is a new image set up in 1865 whom men bow down to and worship when they hear the sound of the sacbut, &c. What did Lord Derby say about Mr. Cardwell in the House of Lords? He said he feared that that hon. gentleman had got the colonies, which he controls, into trouble, equivalent to the same troubles which he got Ireland into when he was secretary of that country. Is it treason to attack Mr. Cardwell or Her Majesty’s Ministers? It is not. When the Queen asks the people of New Brunswick to do anything, […]
- (p. 84)
[…] no matter what, unless it is to give up our birthright, we will do it, but in these despatches we have nothing to do with the Queen, we only have to do with Her Majesty’s Ministers, and I will handle them as I please. I would only like to have the Colonial Secretary to face me on the floors of the House, and I would soon show him that the sooner he got out of the office he now holds the better for himself. News has arrived that he is going out of the Colonial Secretary’s office. “Thank the Lord for all his mercies.” He is going to be Speaker in the House of Commons, and may he never come back to his present oflice again, and when you write to him again tell him Needham said so.
These Confederates of York, who boast so much of their loyalty, made out their Confederate ticket at the general election. Who did they have on it? First was my hon. colleague (Mr. F.) whose loyalty I do not dispute, so far as his pluck will allow him. I do not know about his being a descendant of the Loyalists, for I never could find the name of Fisher in any history of those times. The next is John A. Beckwith, then Dr. Dow, can any one dispute his loyalty. Do you remember the Trent affair, when Dr. Dow said he never would take up arms against the land of his birth. They denounce me for being disloyal, and call this man loyal who would not raise his arm against his native country, when that country was insuling the flag we love. These charges of loyalty and disloyalty should not be put forth because we entertain these opinions, for I consider them altogether wrong. My hon. colleague (Mr. F.) has stated in regard to the Fenian excitement, that it was not right to send Her Majesty’s troops to the frontier because they would desert. This was a wrong expression at a wrong time. The British troops, when facing the foe, do not desert. They are sent here to defend us and our homes, and it is not for us to turn round and tell them they would desert when they were sent to meet the common enemy of our common land. Then in regard to the despatches.
There may be men of larger talents, more gigantic minds, and more towering intellects then I am, but as to more manhood or more independence I yield to no man, and no man on the other side of the water knows more of what will do my country good than I do myself. I could teach the whole British Cabinet, so far as the interests of New Brunswick are concerned. When the Imperial Parliament was called together, the answer to the speech was moved by the late Governor of Nova Scotia, the Marquis of Normandy, and he touched upon every point in Her Majesty’s speech but one, that was the federation of the North American Colonies. We know he was here and knew about confederation, but while he commented upon every other sentence in the speech, he wisely and justly held his peace when he came to confederation. Does not that mean an absolute condemnation of the scheme. Lord Normanby [sic] was a man of talent, and a man that understood his position, and his silence on that point conveys this idea. (Mr. Needham then quoted from a speech by Lord Cavendish, commenting upon it and characterising it as mere nonsense.) The hon. mover of the amendment said that this Government was unworthy of the confidence of the people of this country, because they made him feel humiliated when they sent home that dispatch to which allusion has been made. I say I approve of it, and feel glad that we have men in this country who would write such a dispatch.
Hear what Mr. Cartier, the Attorney General of Canada, said, and this was before we sent that delegation to England. He says: “Our whole intention is to lay before the Government of the mother country our position as it now is, in consequence of the breaking of the treaty by the Maritime Provinces, in order that they may bring some pressure to bear on them to bring about the Federal Union which was designed.”
And again: “It is of consequence, I say, that we should show the Imperial Government that Canada, which contains more than three-fourths of the population of all the Provinces on this Continent, has not failed to fulfil her part in the compromise, but that the Maritime Provinces it is who have broken their sworn engagement.”
It is exceedingly strange that the Governor of Nova Scotia, in his Address to Parliament, never refers to Confederation. Are Her Majesty’s commands not to be obeyed in that Province? If Her Majesty sent out certain dispatches that one Government thought would be a benefit to the country, would they dare withhold them from the Legislature of the country? If they did, they would soon be hurled from power. Is it not our glory and pride that, though Colonies, and dependent upon the British Empire, we are part and parcel of that mighty nation, and are as much bound by the constitutional usages, laws and customs of that nation as if we were in London or Edinburgh, for we have the same claim to British nationality as they have. But were a Legislature or Government to refuse to receive a message from Her Majesty, it would be open rebellion.
Let it not, then, be said that we are truckling to the Home Government because we, having received Her Majesty’s commands to lay before the House certain dispatches, we have done so. This dispatch comes out here with Her Majesty’s name appended to it. She expresses no opinion about Confederation, but commands the Governor to lay before the Legislature certain correspondence between Lord Monck and the Colonial Secretary. This done; and I see no truckling to the British Government in the Speech. If there was, I would not sustain them. In speaking of this glorious Confederation scheme, I am reminded of an anecdote my hon. friend (Mr. Wetmore) got before the people at the last election. He says: “Suppose my son was to come here and ask me, “Father, where is your country?” I should say I had no country; Mr. Tilley sold it on the 4th of October, 1864.”
You see he entertains the same opinion that I do. I could not let Tilley, Cardwell or the British Government sell my country. I dissent from the opinion expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Williston) that this is an Imperial question which they have a right to legislate upon. I say they have not, and I want them to hear it on the other side of the water. After they gave us a Constitution, no power on earth can legislate it away without our consent, and it is a wrong doctrine to propound on the floors of this free Assembly. She can only legislate for her own Imperial interest, and when she comes to interfere with our independent rights, it is an act of usurpation and tyranny that free men never will submit to.
A voice once went from this great North American Continent when tyranny was exercised by the British Ministry at home over a then free people, and we see the results. When they sought to tax the North American Colonies without giving them representation in the British Parliament, the people rose as one man, and wrested, by rebellion, or, as it is now termed, by revolution, one of the brightest jewels from the Crown of Great Britain. Let Mr. Cardwell beware, for the spirit of those men is here, and the power is here. Let him beware how he attempts to infringe upon our constitutional rights, for we would be unworthy of the name of being the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons were we to submit to such infringement of our rights. That delegation was sent home to England not only because that despatch was sent out here by Mr. Cardwell, but because the Canadian Government had sent delegates home in order that they might induce the British Government to bring a pressure to bear here. The Maritime Provinces are accused of having broken their sworn engagements.
I will ask my hon. colleague (Mr. F.) for the honor of York and for the benefit of the country, did these thirty-three delegates, when they met in Canada, swear to fulfil the terms of that engagement. (Mr. Fisher.—I never heard of an oath.) You never heard of it—perhaps you were at church. Mr. Cartier says we have broken our sworn engagements. I do not know what oath they took, or whether he virtually means an oath, but it is exceedingly strange language. I was called to account, because I said at the last election, that politically Canada was corrupt. Mr. Cartier says some of the members of the House and all our delegates have violated their solemn oath and broken the treaty, and was he called to account? Our delegates could make but one treaty that would be binding: that was to call their Legislature together when they got home, and make their Scheme law without appealing to the people. That was what they violated, and it was well for them that they did violate it. Another count in the indictment is, the Government have not taken proper precautionary measures in reference to the defence of the Province.
My hon. colleague (Mr. F.) said it was wrong to expend that $30,000 in the city of Fredericton. (Mr. Fisher.—I gave no opinion about the expenditure of last year at all. I said the Government could have had the thirty days drill in the month of March on the borders of the Province, and thus complied with all the law requires, without adding to the public expenditure.) It is a bad time to drill a man just as you want to use him. Drill your men when you have the time. (Mr. Glazier.—Half of those who drilled last summer have gone out of the country.) Name me a dozen. It is just like the cry got up that the young men were leaving the country because we have not got Confederation. Young men leave every country at all times; therefore it was nonsense to get up this cry. My hon. colleague says he holds the Government responsible for every act of the Commander-in-Chief. I do not agree with him in this.
(Mr. Needham then referred to the law concerning […]
- (p. 85)
[…] the Commander-in-Chief passed in 1862, and endeavored to prove that the Governor in Council was only responsible for the money which was expended for military purposes, an the Commander-in-Chief was alone responsible for any act of mis-feasance, mal-feasance or the disposition of the troops)
In regard to Fenianism. I do not believe there is one native Fenian in the Province connected with any Circle or any Head Centre, and I do not believe there ever will be one in this country. I do not believe it ever was the intention of any fillibusters in the United States to make raids upon any of the British Provinces. It is an old saying that “the dog that bites does not bark.” Men don’t make such boasts in order to enable their opponents to be prepared. I do not believe that Roberts or O’Mahoney ever dreamed of crossing the border line of these Provinces. If they did, I have faith in the integrity of that great nation alongside of us to know that whatever wrong she may have suffered at the hand of other nations, in their opinions and sympathies, she has too high an opinion of her dignity as a nation, and of her standing among the family of nations on the earth, to allow any fillibustering expedition to cross her land to go to another country and raise the flag of rebellion to overthrow the government of that country.
So long as that power stands, so long will she, in her own integrity and dignity, maintain that international law which is the life of the world. I do not believe in the doctrine of Fenianism, but I entertain my views in regard to the wrongs of Ireland. My hon. friend (Mr. Kerr) spoke of the Union of Scotland with England. It is a matter of history that the purse of Queen Anne was drained to the dregs to purchase the members of the Parliament of Scotland to sell their country, and the names of the men who sold it are this day in eternal infamy. Scotland at that time was crippled, for she had just come out of the great Darien expedition, and her ships and commerce were not protected by the British flag, but the moment she came into that union her commerce was extended and her ships protected by the Union Jack of old England. How was the Union with Ireland effected? By fraud and rapine. We are told this in history, and it cannot be obliterated. Men in Ireland sold their parliament for Lords, Earls, Dukes, and paltry pelf. I do not say it was a natural consequence, but it stands as a beaccu [sic] light that scarcely any one of them died a natural death. Scotland has benefitted by that Union, but let Scotland have what we now have here, a Parliament of our own, with an independent local self-government, and you would see where she would be now.
The Debate was now adjourned, Mr. Needham to resume at 11 o’clock to-morrow, and the House was adjourned until 10 A. M.