New Brunswick, House of Assembly, Reports of the Debates (31 May 1865)
By: New Brunswick (House of Assembly)
Citation: New Brunswick, House of Assembly, Reports of the Debates of The House of Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick, During the Session of 1865 at 111-115.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
WEDNESDAY, May 31, 1865.
- (p. 111)
Mr. Boyd.—I thought this subject had been so well ventilated that we should never hear any more about it, but since the matter has been brought in I suppose it has been considered necessary. The first thing I heard of this Union question was the appointment of delegates to confer at Prince Edward Island, on a Legislative Union of the Maritime Provinces. It seems they went there and commenced their deliberations, but some gentlemen from Canada came down. pooh-poohed at the idea of such a Scheme, proposed a larger Union, to embrace all the Provinces, and that was the last of their mission. Next we find them going off to Canada without any power from this Legislature, or any other. They met, but it was impossible to find out what they were doing ; after a time they returned, yet nothing was known as to their proceedings. This attempt at secrecy roused the public feeling, and the press clamoured for information. At last it all came out by a paper in Prince Edward Island publishing the whole Scheme.
When I read it first I was somewhat favourably impressed by it, but as I read on and came to the Section which provided that the Governor General should have the appointment of the Governors of the Lower Provinces, I said at once, then the last link that binds us to England will be broken. I went on further and found that New Brunswick was to be represented in the General Parliament by only fifteen members and I then felt that we should be swamped by Upper Canada. The fact was Canada found herself overwhelmed with debt and wanted to get the support of these Provinces to relieve her, and so we were to be bought and sold for eighty cents a head. Our people had been content with their position, and if they ever desired a change, it was that we might enter into a Union of the Lower Provinces.
Then came the dissolution of the House a a time when the people were little prepared for it, and for the first time in the history of the Province we find men who had occupied the highest position in the Government stumping the country to carry their Scheme. But they could not make the […]
- (p. 112)
[…] people believe the story they told, and the result was that every one of then were rejected at the elections. I do not intend to go further into the subject. I simply make these remarks as an opening, as it will be taken up and treated on by abler men than myself.
Mr. McMillan. —The hon. mover of these resolutions should expound his views. and lay before the House the reasons for the position he takes, so that hon. members who are opposed to him may have an opportunity of replying to his remarks.
Mr. Cudlip —If this subject were being debated in the whole House with the Speaker in the chair, this would be the right way to proceed, but in Committee every hon. member should be at liberty to speak freely. I have no objection to ex pound the reasons why I brought in this resolution, but I am weary of talking on this Scheme, but I have had so much of it to do for the last six months. I find that the Duke of Newcastle in a despatch to Earl Mulgrave, dated the 6th July. 1862, says as to the authority of the delegates that ” it should emanate in the first instance from the Province, and should be concurred in by all of them which it would affect. ” Here it is directly laid down that the people should take the lead in any measure of this kind ; yet we know that the delegates not only conferred on the subject of Union, but adopted a Scheme of which the people knew nothing.
The resolution passed by this House in 1861 was on a matter of the Union of the three Lower Provinces, and had no reference whatever to a Union with Canada. I might go into the Scheme and show thus it carried out it would have proved most disastrous to the interests of this Province, but that has been so well ventilated that it is not necessary, and the country has decided on it. But I want another delegation appointed that we may put ourselves right before the British Government, and that they may confer on all points that tend to the welfare of this Province. If it is wanted to put the resolution down, the House can do it, but I think it is necessary that the question should be taken up and hon. members can oppose it by any arguments they choose to bring.
Hon. Mr. McMillan.—The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Cudlip) has avoided touching upon the three points of his resolution, namely that Confederation would prove disastrous to this country, politically, financially, and commercially. He has given no reasons for the ground he has taken in the resolution. He says the country has pronounced against it, and the vote of this House will doubtless decide against it; then I would ask, why put the country to the expense of sending gentlemen home merely to tell England the wishes of the people of this Province ? These were ascertained by the late elections. and are well known in England, without sending home a special delegation to tell them of it. The hon. mover has declined to sustain the three positions he assumes.
Hon. Mr. Smith —You can disprove them.
Mr. McMillan.—Yes, that is a very logical idea. The hon. President of the Council calls on me to prove a negative. I will, however, answer a few of the grounds taken. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Costigan) says with regard to this Union, ” there is no strength in it.” No strength in it ! Union is not strength then,—a proposition contrary to what I have always heard He says, ” there would be rebellion in the country if the Scheme had been carried.” This I consider to be the highest compliment which could possibly be paid to the Confederates. He says in effect that if there had been a majority for the Scheme, the minority would have rebelled. The friends of Confederation did not succeed, they were found to be in a minority, and yet they proved to be as loyal as those who succeeded in crushing the measure by a large majority. I say this is a high compliment to pay to these who were charged with wishing to dissolve the ties that bind us to the glorious mother country. He says, ” the elections were hurried on, and that we relied on the ignorance of the people to carry it through.” This is an argument that to my mind will cut both ways. I believe that a great many voted against Confederation because they failed to understand the benefits that would follow from it ; but the anti-Confederate leaders threw up that great bug-bear taxation.
Hon. Mr. Anglin. Hear, hear.
Mr. McMillan. —The hon. member says hear, hear but he knows such was the case, and he used this very argument. On’ the same ground all the great Schemes that ever came up, have been attacked, but in the end the people have seen their mistake, as I have no doubt they yet will on this question. Then the hon. member says we were ” going to be swamped, only fifteen members from New Brunswick and so many from Canada.” He seems to forget what matters were to come before the General Government to be discussed. What is it that makes dissention and discussion ; is it not the matters that are of a local character? But there the question of tariffs and general trade could have caused no such dissention. And then supposing difficulties did arise what would affect us would in a like manner affect Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, and Lower Canada, and these together would wield greater influence than could be brought to bear against them. See how it has been in Canada, although divisions have taken place there, the parties were so equal that a few members were always able to sustain or overthrow a Government.
And how shall it be said that Upper Canada, with h ? r eighty-two members will swamp us, when we are backed by 112 on all discussions of general character which alone can be brought up. And then it has been said that Upper Canada is increasing very rapidly in population. Well, will they not have to contribute in proportion to their population, and then the less per capita shall we have to pay. These are all local view of the matter, but in a question of this kind, we should rise above such petty, narrow views, and look at the advantages that would accrue from our being a large, united and free people. Next the hon. member for Victoria said that there was no certainty or guarantee whatever that the Railway would be built. But this was provided for in the Scheme, and sanctioned by the Imperial Government. He then said that Canada would go on with canals and public works and we should have to pay for them.
I am not prepared to endorse such a proposition, for with a population ten times that of ours. I do not think it at all likely they will be willing to tax themselves $10 for the purpose of getting $1 from us. Then as to the Railway through our Province ; it would go through the entire length, and of the $16,000,000—entire cost—some $9,000,000 would be spent in this Province. The Railway would run some 220 miles, opening up and increasing the value of our Crown Lands at least four fold for all time to come for our own particular benefit. Another point made is that our population would not increase. This is certainly new to me ; what is it that brings people to a country, is it not that trade is flourishing ? And would it not give an impetus to trade to have the barriers that exist in other countries broken down ? And it would become a matter of indifference whether goods were made in Montreal, or Toronto or St. John, as the maxim would be to ” buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest.” The hon. member for York (Mr. Needham) says we were to be sold for $201,000. He evidently has forgotten that the General Government would have assumed a large amount of our liabilities. There was
|Interest on our assumed debts||$407,000|
|Our share I.C. Railroad on population,||52,000|
|Our proportion of Militia,||70,000|
|Cost and Protection of the Revenue,||41,000|
|Salary of Judges,||28,000|
|Post Office deficiency,||25,000|
|Master of Rolls,||3,200|
|Subsidy at 80 cents,||201,600|
|Our share of steam navigation,||20,000|
|Subsidy extra for ten years,||63,000||$925,000|
|While we put in our average revenue for three years||785,589|
which we get over and above the Railroad, Free Trade and all the advantages to arise from them.
Now supposing Western Extension were built according to our Facility Bill, and the Intercolonial according to the laws now on our Statute Book, with the Civil List and all the expenses of the local Government, we should require a revenue of $l, l38,340. Whilst it is only $785, 589. We should therefore get out of the Confederacy according to our own law? $352,751 more than we contribute. How then can it be said that we were to be sold for $201,000 ? Another objection raised by the hon. member for York (Mr.Needham) and that is, that we should be bound by any arrangement Canada should choose to enter into ; but this same argument was used in Canada with regard to New Brunswick. The 67 b Section of the Scheme however is general in the application. I have asked the hon. mover to substantiate the three positions he assumes, but he has declined to do so. I have attempted to show that in a financial point of view we should have been placed in a better position, and I cannot understand how a political body such as we should be would injure the little Province of New Brunswick. Is it imagined that New Brunswick, with her House of forty members, eclipses in importance the 194 members of a united Confederacy ? Would not the larger body be regarded as of more importance, and wield a greater influence, and be of more weight in the eyes of the Mother Country and the Imperial Parliament than we are now ?
Politically we should be placed is a far better position, and commercially we should also be benefitted. Would it injure us that all the imaginary lines and Custom House […]
- (p. 113)
[…] barriers between the Provinces should be removed, that we should be enabled to extend our trade, and enlarge our enterprise? If we have manufactures in the country is it not for our benefit that they should be extended? Will it hurt us to have plenty of customers ? We have manufactures in this country, and all we need is that we should have a large market and more field for our enterprise. Why did we agree to the Reciprocity Treaty with the United States? Was it not to get a wider field of operations ? And if we, with a population of 250,000, can sustain manufactories, could we not do it much better if we were 4,000,000 ? How then can it be that we should be ruined commercially, by this Union ? And now for the resolutions themselves.
The third clause of the preamble says ” Whereas, the loyalty and attachment of the people of this Province to the Throne and Government of Great Britain cannot justly be impunged, &c.” Now this is a most extraordinary proposition and one that I cannot understand. It reminds me of a saying of the hon. President of the Council, that for a man to be always speaking of his honesty looks as though there was some cause to doubt it. This very talk about our loyalty tends to cast a doubt on it. Satisfy the British Government ! Conciliate the British Government! What for ? Because we are Antis? Is this why we grant a sum of $30,000 for our militia, and again are called on to pay for delegates to go home to tell the people of England what they know as well as we do ? But I will go on ” And whereas, in the exercise of the right of internal self-government enjoyed by this Province, its people are entitled to deliberate and decide upon all questions affecting their own local interests in such manner as to them may seem best calculated to promote their prosperity and welfare, &c.” What evidence in there before the House that the British Government intend to deprive us of Responsible Government, or self-government ? for this is the only inference that can be drawn from this pagraph [sic].
Mr. Cudlip,—I will just explain. It was contemplated to carry out the Union of the Colonies by chicanery, by cajoling, by deception, and by bribery in high places, the same as it was in Ireland when she was united to England. But the people of this Province were too wide awake for them, and decided against their plottings.
Mr. McMillan.—The hon. member says the country has decided against Confederation, and now I ask him to justify the grounds on which he asks the House to send delegates home. If any thing more is necessary why not shew by an Address to Her Majesty, or by sending home a copy of the public Journals what has been the result,. After admitting that the vote of this House will be, to ask for delegates to he appointed, appears to me to be a very childish thing. The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Boyd) says he is in favour of a Union of the Maritime Provinces. I would ask him what advantages will this give us that the large one would not confer?
Hon Mr. Anglin.—Fifty times as many.
Mr. McMillan.—If it is an advantage to get into connection with 300,000 or 400,000, would not the advantages be still greater if we were to join ourselves to 3,000,000 or 4,000,000? It has been stated that the delegates had no right to meet in Conference on a Union with the other Colonies, when it is well known that by a despatch from the Imperial Government to the Governor of Nova Scotia on this question, power was given to the Governor General to call them together for this very purpose. Mr. Cardwell also says in his despatch to the Lieut. Governor, ” with the sanction of the Crown. &c., they assembled.” But apart from all this I dissent from this objection on general principles. I believe that men should meet together to confer upon subjects pertaining to the welfare of the whole of the Provinces. A great deal has been said about the manner in which the delegation was carried on ; it is said they had champagne, and a jolly time of it, and yet those who condemned the meeting of these delegates, want now to send other delegates home to go through the same. But Mr. Cardwell’s eulogy on the men who composed that delegation, and the manner in which they carried on their proceedings is quite sufficient justification of the course pursued.
What does he say ? ” Animated by the warmest sentiments of loyalty and devotion to their Sovereign, earnestly desirous to secure for their posterity throughout all future time, the advantages which they enjoy as subjects of the British Crown ; steadfastly attached to the institutions under which they live, they have conducted their deliberations with patient sagacity, and have arrived at unanimous conclusions on questions involving many difficulties, and calculated under less favorable auspices to have given rise to many differences of opinion.” Such an event is in the highest degree honorable to those who have taken part in these deliberations. It must inspire confidence in the men by whose judgment and temper this result has been attained.
Another ground taken by my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Boyd.) was that our own men should not be appointed to the Governor’s chair. What! I would ask, is not the hon. President of the Council able to fill that position ? I say that we have men who are able not only to fill the office, but who are able to teach the Governors who are sent out to us, so that they go home better and wiser men than when they came out. But apart from this there are objects that should animate us with a spirit of progress.
What is the cry of England? ” Free trade, free trade with the world,” and this should be our motto, not as I said the other day, to build a china wall around us and crop us up in our little egg shell, and call all outside of us barbarians. This is not the principle of the day ; this should not be our policy, but to enter into an alliance that will enable us to have free trade with our neighbours ; and this Union of the Provinces, I maintain, would be commercially the best step we could take. I have already gone into the figures and shown that financially we should have been much better off, and I shall not now take up any more of the time of the House, but hold myself ready to answer any thing that may be brought up as the debate proceeds.
Hon. Mr. Anglin.—The hon. ex-Surveyor General has worked himself up into a fervor on this subject, which I confess I do not experience. I feel an apathy and coldness on this question., for so much has been said and heard upon it that all must be tired of it. The hon. member in all his long speech has brought out nothing new—nothing but what has been refuted a thousand times. Last Session this House appointed delegates to confer as to the feasibility of a Union of the Lower Provinces. They met at Charlottetown, and although ostensibly deliberating a few days they did nothing but wait for the Canadian delegates to propose another Union. It is evident from the whole proceedings that they all went there prepared to go into the larger Scheme.
The Canadians came down in a steamer, and then commenced a round of festivities which ended by giving to us a Scheme by which our rights and revenues were to be bartered away for ever. In the meantime we find a most insignificant body in St. John—the Chamber of Commerce insignificant in numbers and influence we find them set to work by some secret influence, inviting not any Commercial body like themselves, but the whole of the Legislature of Canada, on their own responsibility, to pay us a visit. We know that when the invitation reached Canada the Legislature was in the last throes of dissolution. After awhile the matter was renewed, and some of the members of the new House came down. They were received with that hospitality and kindly treatment which strangers always receive in St. John, and at a dinner given in their honor at Stubbs’ Hotel, although I did not wish to speak, I was called on, and in a most guarded manner told them that they need not imagine from the demonstrations of the people, that they were all in favor of a Union with Canada.
The delegates, if such they may be called, for they only claim to have acted on a despatch which had been received from the Imperial Government some years before, when they returned from Canada soon let us know that falsehood and misrepresentation were the engines to be used in this country to forward the Scheme. We were at first told that the people were not to he informed as to what had been done, till the Scheme had been sent to England, and come out again ; it would have been a breach of etiquette to let the people, who were most interested, know anything about it till it had been laid before the Imperial Cabinet ; and there is no doubt at all but that it was intended to withhold all particulars till the House met, and then to force it through before time could be given for the people or their representatives to think on the matter.
A gentleman who has done much for Confederation asked the Provincial Secretary whether they intended to submit it to the people, or to push it through the House, and he replied that it had not yet been decided. Rumour said that the question did come up in the Council, and that Mr. McMillan the then hon. Surveyor General was the only one who said it ought to be submitted. They then determined at once to dissolve the House. and have a new election. I think it is hardly fair for those who then forced an election on the country, and made the people travel for miles through snow and mud to hear them expound their pet Scheme, to charge their failure on the ignorance of the people, especially as they did all they could to enlighten them.
Then the statements that were put forth by the different delegates were most contradictory. One of them in Carleton County told the people that the Intercolonial Railroad was to come down past Woodstock, and another over at the North Shore made a very different statement, intimating it would come by their doors. One said it would pass down the West Side of the River St. John, and another that it would take the Central route for the especial benefit King’s. And even in St. John the two delegates on the same platform could not agree in […]
- (p. 114)
[…] their statements. As manager of one of the City papers, I had to follow them day after day, and it was a very onerous duty, in all their wanderings and contradictory statements. They told the people that all the benefit was to be ours, and Canada was going to confer the greatest boons of us. But it so happened that about that time Mr. Galt, the Finance Minister of Canada, addressed some of his people on the subject, and it was published in pamphlet form. By mere accident I obtained a copy, and there I found Mr. Galt making the very same statement, namely, that Canada was to get all the benefit, and he was right, whilst our delegates were wrong.
Our tariffs were to be as- simulated, and we were to become one great nation with liberty to trade from the Atlantic to Lake Huron. I will now go into a short statement which, altho’ I have not the exact figures before me, are sufficiently near to prove the inaccuracies of the statement made by the hon. member from Restigouche. In 1863 Canada had a debt of over a million of dollars. We were to have a great Legislature of 194 members, and all its operations were to be carried on without any more expense than at present. The number of members increased from 41 to 194—a hovel exchanged for a palace—a great British North American Nationality—and all at the same expense as now. Then there was the eighty cents a head. Now this is a paltry sum to us, but I find that to the Canadians it would be more then their expenditure by about a million of dollars. This added to the debt makes $2 000,000. This amount would have to be made up in excess of our own revenues.
In addition to this there was to be a largely increased expense for militia. The whole Provinces were to be armed and put in a complete state of defence at a cost of $1,000,000. This was the sum put forth in Canada. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as the cost of putting us in a complete state to defend ourselves against the United States, and it only met with deserved ridicule. Then there was our revenue another million, and that makes $4,000,000, without providing for their extended works, canals, &c., which were as much a part of the Scheme as anything else. And yet in view of all this we had gentlemen who came before the public and stated that our expenditure was to bo reduced. The taxation was to be lowered from $3 to $2 75 ; I am happy to say that our people refused to be humbugged by such a statement. This was one of the misrepresentations.
Mr. Galt took the same ground, and it was doubtless prepared by him. He told the Canadians that the Canadian tariff would be enough to meet all the expenses, that we should have to bear 2? per cent more, and Nova Scotia 7? per cent more. There the Canadian tariff was to be lowered to 17? per cent, and thus all was to be assimulated. The hon. ex-Surveyor General did not take into consideration what the effect of the increase of our tariff would be. Why it would give us an increase of duty on tea, excise duties, and the stamp act. Applying the tariff of Canada to ours we should have to pay $250,000. The hon. Mr. Tilley tried to controvert my statement when I made it, and he stated that it was only $211,000. With a tariff of twenty per cent in Canada they pay less per head than we do. We went into an account of the dutiable articles, and it was said that we use more than they do. It was said, why look here, the people of Canada useless sugar than we do ; but if they had gone a little further they would have seen that in molasses we use nine gallons to their one. This was the style of the misrepresentations.
Since 1863 the Canadians have had to impose a much higher tariff, and yet in spite of all, their deficit is larger than ever before. This was the people we were asked to unite with to become prosperous. The hon. member says that they were to assume the interest of our debt, but then they were also to take all our revenues except our Crown Lands. They too were to take the liability of all our Railway works under the Facility Bill, and well they might, for they never imagined it would amount to anything. and knew that nothing would ever have been paid. With regard to the eighty cents a head, it is well known that increase as we may, we could never get any more. The hon. gentleman argues that we can’t have the Railway without Confederation, when I have shown that we should have had about $80,000 more for public works without it than we could get in it.
Mr. McMillan.—Did not Mr. Tilley show that the difference in duty on spirits, and the duty on ship’s materials, would equal the amount he named ?
Hon. Mr. Anglin.—He did try to cut it down in his own peculiar way. He tried to show that we would gain some tried to show that we would gain some $100,000 by assimilating our tariff to the Canadian free list.
Mr. McMillan.—Taking the importation of 1863 in each Province, the average in Canada is 11 per cent., and here it is a little over 10 per cent.
Hon. Mr. Anglin —But the right way is to take up the separate articles, and show that even $1,000 will be saved. much. The hon. member, in speaking of the Post Office savings, said nothing about the tax on papers and stamps on newspapers. The statement that we should not have the Canadian tariff is perfectly absurd, and I could show it in half an hour if it were necessary. We were told that we were to be relieved from a number of things, as if we were some pauper on bended knee supplicating the assistance of some wealthy neighbor. But first they were to relieve us of our revenue, and then to pay these various sums, while they made a nice little commission out of the operation. Then one of the prettiest little dodges of the Scheme was, that Canada would very obligingly and kindly give on $63,000 for ten years. PRO-VID-ED that we spent a certain sum on Western Extension, which the very sagely and wisely believed would never be paid. Even in their own statements the $63,000 soon faded out, and was not put forward again. The Upper Canadians have strong proclivities towards annexation, because they do their business with the United States, and would rather send their produce to their markets than to England.
Politically, we should have to start in this Scheme with fifteen members in a House of 194. Our increase is somewhat greater than in Lower Canada, but so little that many years must elapse before we should get any increase of members. Nova Scotia does not increase quite as fast as Lower Canada, and so she would gradually lose, while Prince Edward Island would soon dwindle down to one ; while Canada West would increase so rapidly that in twenty-five years the number would be equal, it not superior, to all the rest. The interest of what is now called Central Canada—and which it. is probable will become a province of itself —is identical with that of Canada West, and would go with them in any matter affecting them. Montreal is the natural centre of trade, and that is in direct communication with Portland. Then, conflicting with that port on the one hand and with Halifax on the other, what a contemptible position we should be in. Talk about our fifteen members being able to do anything ; they could do just nothing at all. See how it is in Canada now.
The difficulties existing there were no doubt the bottom of the whole Scheme, they hoping that these difficulties would be forgot in a larger Union ; and when Mr. Brown crossed the floors of the House and joined with Mr. Cartier, he did it to bring about a great political change, and that was to crush out the spirit of Lower Canada. This much for the financial and political points ; now for the commercial aspect. I know that one of the greatest difficulties we had to combat in St. John was the argument that the markets of all Canada would be open to our manufacturers. The parties who were manipulating this affair got up a manifesto of the manufacturers, which was not prepared by a manufacturer, and by dint of getting it sent round by some dry goods clerks in the rain, they managed to get ninety-one names to it. Of those on the list some were bakers, who it was presumed, would be able to get their wheat down from Canada, manufacture into hot rolls, and send them back to Canada for sale.—tombstone makers. (a rather equivocal interest,)—house carpenters, one was a lumber dealer, who surveys and looks after logs on the river St. John ; one was a mason, and one whose name was down twice, in all ninety-one men. So this argument did not avail much.
Mr. Lawrence delivered one of the most able lectures on the subject, and quite clearly showed the absurdity of people imagining that the Canadiens were such fools and dolts that they could neither make anything, nor imitate anything. I think many of the people have seen their delusion, and I am not willing to admit with my hon friend that Confederation is gaining ground. Why, I am told that Canadian iron and other wares sell at Little Falls at lower prices than they can be go from St. John. My colleague (Mr. Cudlip) has handed me a comparative list of manufactures in Canada in the years 1863 and 1864 :—
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF MANUFACTURES IN CANADA IN 1863 AND 1864.
|1863.||Increase in 1864.||Total.|
|Carding and Fulling Mills,||62||8||70|
|Axe & Edge Tool Factories,||9||3||12|
|Cabinet Ware Factories,||165||54||219|
|Soap & Candle Factories,||16||1||17|
|Boot & Shoe Factories,||38||12||50|
|Match Factoreis [sic],||8||2||10|
- (p. 115)
Thus in manufactures we shall have little chance with them. But this is but one phase of the commercial view. I have heard lectures on this subject, and as I have heard them talk about free trade with Canada, I have asked myself are these people such fools as not to know that if Canada wants to get coal from Pictou they are free to do it as they can possibly be. People forget that there is perfect free trade between us and Canada. This cry about free trade is not the reason why Confederation is wanted, but an hon. member of the Canadian Legislature has explained the whole matter, when he alleged as one of the advantages of Union to Canada, that they would be able to say to the States, we will not only close the St. Lawrence against you, but prevent you from sending down your flour and beef and pork to St. John, and the other ports of the Lower Provinces, unless you come to our terms. Are we thus to be made the cats-paw for Canada? are we to be mere make-weights between Canada and the United States? Are we to have all these articles shut out from us just that Canada may make us consume her corn and pork at immensely higher prices?
Great Britain makes treaties with the United States, but she always asks our opinion about them, and whether they will affect us. When the Reciprocity Treaty was signed. Parliament was called together to deliberate on it, but here we are to have no voice all. Just think of our 15 men standing up among the 194 ; suppose they all stand together for their rights, and against a great wrong, I think I hear the Canadians saying, ” you came into this great union of your own free will, you have reaped the ad- advantages of the alliance, and now when difficulties come you must bear them or do the best you can.” It is said that union is strength, and we had it illustrated in different ways down in St. John at the last elections, but I think we already have a union that is strong enough ; we are united to Great Britain, and I do not think they desire to sever the band that unites us.
Look at the map and see how New Brunswick and Canada run up round the State of Maine like an ox bow ; for some distance the strip of land is not more than twenty miles wide, and is the bond that binds us to Canada, a link that an American troop of dragoons could snap in a day ; and to defend that place or any other there would be no more difficulty in turning out an available force at the request of Great Britain, than by a command from Ottawa. One remark about the delegation to England ; all delegations in the past have been subject to ridicule, and I suppose that others will be, but my hon. friend is the first of his party who I have heard admit, for one moment, that the country has decided on the question of Confederation finally and conclusively.
Mr. McMillan.—I said the resolution say the country has decided on it.
Hon. Mr. Anglin —Do you deny that the question is decided on conclusively?
Mr. McMillan.—I simply said that the resolution states that the country has decided on it.
Hon. Mr. Anglin.—Well, if there is to be quibbling let it pass. The Times, a paper not easy to control, states that in this Province there was only a majority of 455 against Confederation. We, Mr. Chairman, could not get such a statement inserted, and much less could we get it made the basis of a leading article, yet influences are at work to bring this about, and the Saturday Review reiterates the same falsehood and calumny ; when in the County of York alone there are over 900 majority against it. Does this mean nothing? Is it not done for some sinister purpose? When I see Mr. Cartier stating at Fishmonger’s Hall that they had come to induce the people of England to carry out that scheme, I think it is time we did something to counteract such scheming and falsehood.
The Times says again, that these gentlemen from Canada went down to Halifax and were received by every demonstration of respect, and that several influential gentlemen from New Brunswick were also there to receive them. I say that is false. When I see Mr. Cartier, after interview with Lord Palmerston, stating that all is going on well, think it is time we were heard in Downing Street too. I do not wish to say that the feeling or desire to coerce us into this scheme is felt by any in this House, but when I hear an honorable member say that Confederation is gaining ground, and that it may be carried in six months ; and when I hear another gentleman in the other branch say that the reason why Confederation failed was on account of the sins of the late Government, and was never properly tested ; I say, when hear this, I warn these hon. gentlemen that they are playing into the hands of the greatest conspirators against the prosperity and happiness of this Province.
House adjourned till to-morrow morning a 9 o’clock.