Document Information

Date: 1868-02-15
By: Nova Scotia (House of Assembly)
Citation: Nova Scotia, House of Assembly, Debates on Resolutions Relative to Repeal of the “British North America Act”, 24th Parl, 1st Sess, 1868 at 67-82.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

Click here to view the rest of Nova Scotia’s Repeal Debates for 1868.

DEBATE OF THE REPEAL RESOLUTIONS.

[Page 67]

SATURDAY, February 15.

The House met at 11 o’clock.

[…]

(Mr. Kidston’s speech concluded.)

Mr. KIDSTON continued :—I closed my observations last evening with the remark that it was my firm conviction, and I believe it to be the firm conviction of every well regulated mind in the Province of Nova Scotia that the fabric which we have seen raised on the foundation of corruption when assailed by the force of truth and fact will crumble into dust. This Confederation reminds me of an anecdote which I remember hearing of a certain horse trader who was thus accosted by the man who had just purchased one of his horses: “my good man you have got my money, and I have your horse—now that the bargain is concluded tell me his faults while we take a bottle of ale together.” The reply was “well the horse has only two faults,—one is that when you let him loose he is hard to catch,—the other is that when you have caught him he is not worth a cent.” Our bargain is as bad as that one. The measures of the very first Ottawa Parliament give us full evidence, as far as Nova Scotia is concerned, that the legislature of Canada is un-British in its principle, arbitrary and despotic in the exercise of power. We have full evidence, as far as patronage is concerned, that it has been denied to those who went there to advocate our interests; for our members were told “you must swallow your Anti-confederate principles and support the Canadian Government at all hazards, or walk; you need not otherwise ask us to make this, that, or the other appointment.” That is the actual state of affairs. I will now confine myself more particularly to the 5th clause of the resolution, for that embodies a great deal. The hon. member for Inverness said that we had been generously dealt by—that the Dominion Government had paid $600,000 more than they had received from Nova Scotia since Confederation. All I can say in that case is that he has placed himself on the horns of a dilemma, for if that be the fact, how has it come to pass? By the statement of the Finance Minister, just before Confederation took effect, it was shewn that we had an overflowing treasury, money sufficient for all our demands, and with only six months experience of the Union, we are told that the Dominion Government have been obliged to advance us $600,000 over and above what we have paid into their treasury. But the change is easily accounted for. Look at the system on which the Union is financially founded. Look at the Governor General’s salary, and take that as a criterion. $50,000 has to be raised in a Dominion comprising four millions of people to pay its first officer. Contrast that with the sum which the United States, with a population of 34 millions, pay to their President. The sum paid in that country is $25,000, and the difference is greater than at first would appear, for the salary of the Governor General is paid in sterling money, the amount in gold being equal to-day to $80,000 of the currency of the United States. And are not the salaries of all the officials appointed under the Dominion Government proportioned to that enormous salary of the Governor General? Is that the management that was to be expected? One would have supposed that the Government of Canada, with the experience of the past before them—with a knowledge that, through financial bungling, they have reduced the state of their country almost to bankruptcy, would have had a care how they governed the Dominion Take the statement exhibited in the Journals of 1866, and what do we find? The figures shew that their whole system was unsound.

The Canadas were involved in a debt of sixty-four millions or more, and at the present moment I think I am correct in saying that that debt is nothing less than seventy-five millions. Mr. Archibald tried to persuade us that our debt exceeded that of Canada, taking man for man of the population. Let us see how that assertion tallies with the fact. Assuming the debt of Canada to have been sixty-four millions and upwards, and her population 3,500,000, while the population of Nova Scotia may be put at 350,000, we see the debt per head on the Canadians will be $25 while that of the Nova Scotians will be only $15. Now, then, to show the unsoundness of the arrangement, put down the debt of Canada for two Canadians at $50, and the debt of two Nova Scotians at $30,—this produces $80; and if you divide by four you will have the debt per head of the Dominion, and the calculation will prove that every man, woman and child in this country is put in for $3 per head more of debt than he has any reason to pay. This $3 per head gives us for the whole Province nearly a million of dollars which we have done nothing to make ourselves liable for. I find, circulated through the country, the statement that if we had not been confederated we must have increased our tariff. This is merely one of the assertions, used by the Opposition, which they are unable to prove. I contend that such would not have been the case. It is acknowledged on both sides that at the date of Confederation coming into force we were in a most prosperous condition. Our revenues had risen from $660,000 to $1,226,570. Judging the future by the past, I should say that it would not be neces-

[Page 68]

sary to increase our tariff by one per cent to meet all our requirements. But the fact is that as soon as ever you back the Anti-confederates out of one false position they drop into another equally ridiculous. First they told the country that our taxation would not be increased, now they are trying to persuade the people to give a fair trial to the system; they say “it is not right to prejudge matters—do not ask for the repeal of the Act until you give it a fair trial.” I ask if that is logical reasoning. It is about as sound as for the watch, set at the bow of the vessel, entrusted with the care of thousands of lives, and, seeing breakers ahead, to fold his arms and say: “well, there are breakers ahead, but let the ship run on, and will see whether the rocks or the ship are the hardest.” Would the captain accept such reasoning as that from his watch? The hon. member for Inverness turned attention to Cape Breton, and cited her history as a proof that the Imperial Parliament had the power to legislate away the constitution and revenues of a country. I thought he was better acquainted with the story of the Cape Britain Union than that. He said:—

“The Island of Cape Breton possessed a separate constitution; it had a Governor and a Government of its own independent of the Province of Nova Scotia. The House of Commons came in, and by a single Act, containing perhaps not a dozen of lines, amalgamated the island with Nova Scotia. The island was given only two members in a Legislature of forty men.”

The island, it will be remembered, had no Legislature of its own. I believe I am correct in stating that it petitioned to be annexed to Nova Scotia. I know that parties were sent home to dispute the legality of the Union, and to carry the matter before the Privy Council, and I think the delegates then had thrown in their teeth the fact that that petition deprived them of the right to the repeal they solicited. The hon. member is also in error in saying that we had two representatives; we had only one at that time. But what does this illustration go to prove? Many in Cape Breton think it proves substantially the very facts which we are propounding to the people of Nova Scotia;—they say that the island could never procure justice at the hands of the Government of Nova Scotia until it obtained additional representation.

The hon. member touched, Mr. Speaker, on grounds which, if followed out faithfully and truthfully, would show his position to be false and untenable. We know that nothing like justice was done to Cape Breton up to the day when we had four representatives, and even when that number was doubled it could not be said that we were receiving a fair consideration for the money that we were paying into the treasury year after year. That is the position the hon. member puts himself in when he talks about Cape Breton. All throughout, the arguments of the Opposition remind one of the anecdote of the white man and the Indian who went on a shooting expedition with the understanding that at night they would meet and divide the game. The white man shot a crow, and the Indian a black duck, and when they met the white man proposed to make the division, and said, “Suppose you take the crow, and I will take the duck; or I will take the duck, and you take the crow.” “Well,” said the Indian, “what for you always say crow to me?” There is too much crow, and not enough duck, in the hon. member’s logic. I feel that in submitting our request for repeal to the intelligent people and Government of England, and to our beloved Sovereign who sits on the throne of Britain, we are appealing to those who have hearts to feel and sympathize with the wrongs of our people. I believe that when our Sovereign fully comprehends our story her ear will be open to our petition, her heart will respond to our desire, and that she will without hesitation demand that her Parliament restore us to our original condition, and to the rights and liberties which were founded on the British constitution.

I think it can be shown that the Parliament of the Dominion, in its first session, has departed from everything like British principle, and has shown a determination to treat us in a way too arbitrary to be submitted to by any free people. Do you think that the eyes of British statesmen will be blinded to this truth? We know that if the sentiment of love which is planted within the human heart, whether it be loyalty or any other species of affection, be treated with contempt and spurned, the mind takes a reverse action and that love is turned into undying hatred. May I refer you to the thirteen lost colonies in proof of my position? There we saw loyalty as true as that which prevails in any part of the British dominions to-day. That loyalty was turned into hate at the rebellion; but when the rebellion broke out in the United States, and brother was arrayed against brother, many thought that their hate to England would die out, but there was nothing that could obliterate the hatred of the old colonists to Great Britain. There is a proof that love trampled on and spurned becomes undying hate, and hence the consequences. I ask will British statesmen trample on the rights again of another colony. Will they, with the lessons of the past, and looking at the geographical position of Nova Scotia which makes her the stronghold of the continent, attempt to force us into compliance? The hon. member for Inverness tried to persuade us that England would force us at the point of the bayonet, but would she run the risk, knowing that Nova Scotia is the Gibraltar of this continent, of having love turned into hate in this Province, and of the consequences which must follow? I know that that hon. gentleman is capable in some instances, more especially in courts of law, of making “the worse appear the better reason,” but I doubt that he can convince the statesmen of England that we have been justly dealt by. I will state one or two facts to show the position to which our affairs have come. I was asked by several of my constituents to get one or two way offices established, and to have some slight change made in the post rides; but how was I met when I touched upon the subject in conversation with the Post Master General? I respect that officer as a thorough and courteous business man, but the first thing he asked me

[Page 69]

was, “have you seen Mr. Blanchard on the subject?” That shut me out from asking anything further. What, has it come to this that the postal affairs of the whole Province are hanging on the lips of that hon. member? Have we been reduced to such degradation? It is time for us to be up and doing if we have come to that, and let England know that beyond a certain point mortal flesh cannot submit. When the insult has become so glaring it is time that the country awoke to a sense of its duty. The treatment to which I have referred is of a piece with the treatment of our representatives in the Dominion Parliament. I ask are Canadian pets to preside over our affairs?

As I have said before the constitutional right of the people to be heard on any change in their institutions has been ignored. That right has been vindicated now by the people’s advocates outside of and in this House. The hon. Joseph Howe has buckled on his armour, and come forth to do battle for Nova Scotia. When he was fighting for the noble principles of responsible government, which we so long enjoyed, and which made us a happy and a prosperous people, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies propounded the doctrine that the Government in this country was based on the well understood wishes of the people. We have been told that our constitution has been swept away and is revocable. I will not believe that statement until we have it from the lips of our delegates. Who will attempt to say what would be the consequences then. I believe that the news which they will bring will be cheering to this country. I believe that justice will yet be done; and if this were not the opinion of the people, we would not see peace and loyalty throughout the land, as at present existing. Ours are a loyal people, proceeding in a constitutional manner, and we will wait until the message comes. If that message should be favorable our rejoicings will be unparalleled; but if it be the reverse, it is impossible to foretell the consequences.

Mr. BLANCHARD.—I take this opportunity of inquiring from the hon. member if the post rides of which he has spoken, do not run through my county? If he declines to reply, I will communicate with the Postmaster General.

MR. LAWRENCE’S SPEECH.

Mr. Speaker,—When I survey the magnitude of the great question before us, which involves the largest interests of the people of Nova Scotia, and which must exert a powerful influence, for good or evil, upon their fortunes, I experience a sense of responsibility which is almost painful. But, sir, it is not my purpose to enter into any lengthy remarks on this question; that ground has been fully explored, and I should hardly hope to come back with a single discovery; our dealing with this question is not so much for long speeches, as to act and decide, as regards the restoration of the constitution of Nova Scotia. It is the duty of the representative to sacrifice considerable to his constituents. But in his unbiased opinion he ought not to sacrifice to any man, or any set of men living. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. And, sir, I hope that wisdom and moderation will be displayed in dealing with any question that may come up for discussion. The question before this House is most vitally connected with the liberty and well-being of every man in Nova Scotia; which being decided one way, he may be a free man; which being decided the other, he will be under Canadian rule. And, sir, I cannot find words to express the horror I feel at the outrageous action of the men who sold the liberties and rights of a free people. I must confess, sir, that I have listened to the hon. member from Inverness with a good degree of curiosity. He made a violent attack on the Government with all the fury of a lion; and pours out all the vials of his wrath upon their official heads. But I shall leave the Government to answer for themselves. Nor is he willing to stop there; he goes on to assail the whole House; and gave a challenge to any five or six of them. But, sir, when I look round these benches, and see him surrounded by thirty-six men, I can make all allowance for his fury. And thus looking at the hon. gentleman’s position, I must admire his courage. I know he has a hard road to travel, and therefore I would say to him in all good feeling and brotherly love, have charity in all things, and do not work so hard against the current of public opinion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not to be conceived that a people who have enjoyed the light and happiness of freedom, can be restrained and shut up in the gloom of tyranny and degradation—all progress requires effort. The human mind never rests contented under difficulties, nor yields to the pressure of tyranny without a struggle. It naturally resists oppression and force in all their forms. When it is deprived of what truly belongs to it (as a matter of course) it calls in all its forces, and prepares to regain its own. Such a question is now before us and before the people of this country, and which involves the same principle. The people of Nova Scotia are deprived of what truly belongs to them, and they expect the men whom they have elected to carry out their wishes in seeking for a repeal of the forced and obnoxious British North America Act, and to use all lawful and constitutional means to restore again the right of self-government and the free enjoyment of British liberty, which was obtained for Nova Scotia by the energy and ability of the Hon. Joseph Howe and others, and granted by the Queen and Parliament of Great Britain. But we have been handed over to a set of men who are far away, and who care nothing for us or for the preservation of those interests which are as dear to Nova Scotians as the blood that circulates through their veins. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is no party question, it far transcends all party considerations, and strikes as deeply and fatally at the rights alike of Conservative and Liberal. The people of this country, of all parties, have nobly entered their solemn protest against the outrageous action of the men who sold their country, and which deprives Nova Scotia of self-government in the control of their own revenues, in defiance of every principle of free

[Page 70]

constitutional rights, British justice, and fair play. But they adopted the principle that might makes right, and in that spirit laid their sacrilegious hands upon the constitution of the country; and, sir, if this Confederation Act is not repealed so far as regards Nova Scotia, Nova Scotians will be very little better than servants to the Dominion Parliament; which will, on all occasions, laugh to scorn anything in opposition to their policy from the nineteen members representing Nova Scotia, although backed by the members from the other Province. Canadians may differ or quarrel among themselves; but whenever a question will come up affecting the interests of the Lower Provinces, they will unite against us, and therefore we need never expect any kind of fair play from a Government with so large a majority against us.

“Oh,” but some of the Union men say, “you have punished the men that betrayed you, now turn too and go in for the Union.” But, sir, I think different; it is not so much a question of punishment, as it is the recovery of the rights and liberties of the people of Nova Scotia. Now, sir, it is well known that death was in the pot for the last four years, and unscrupulous schemers broke in upon our rights, and took possession of all we enjoyed, or is worth having in any free country. With false statements and cunning deception, the Government of England was made to think that the people of Nova Scotia were willing and desirous of a union with Canada. All our appeals were of no avail; the people’s petitions were unheeded; all on account of misrepresentation from a few ambitious and interested agitators. Now, sir, what have been the result of the statements made to the British Government that Nova Scotia was in favor of a union with Canada? Why, sir, on the 18th September last, the voice of the people coming up from the eighteen counties of Nova Scotia, condemned and drove to the wall the forsaken remnant of those, who up to the very last hour of their power, ceased not in treating the people with scorn and contempt. No wonder then, that the voice of the country has spoken out with a sound not to be mistaken, against a Confederation that has been forced upon them. The people of Nova Scotia have done too much not to do more; they have gone too far not to go on; they are brought into that situation in which they must either silently abdicate the rights of their country, or try constitutionally to restore them. Canadians may talk plausibly to Nova Scotians, but so long as they exercise a power to bind this country, so long will the chains of the one go against the liberty of the other. I love the old constitution; I have confidence in the integrity and capacity of the people of Nova Scotia to govern themselves as in days gone by. I love the good old flag of England, I was born under it, and I hope to die under it. But I have no desire to live under Canadian rule; I love freedom too well for that. Our cause may meet impediments, and may for a time be defeated; but ultimately must triumph, for

“Freedom’s battle once begun,
Bequeathed from bleeding sire to son,
Though baffled oft, is ever won.”

Yes, sir, our claim is strong, based on the eternal principles of right; and is it possible that a thing so grievously wrong as this uncalled for and forced Union with Canada can triumph? No, sir, the people of Nova Scotia know their rights, and will never submit to be kept in leading strings by Canadians. If the people are to be lulled to sleep, in the very crisis of their country’s salvation, who, then, is to decide? Not the intriguers and interested office hunters of the country. No, sir, the voice of a majority of the people is the proper channel to decide in such matters, and keep in their own hands the result of the hard labor and toil of their youth. Look at the outrageous tariff that the Canadians have forced upon us, and what do we get in return? Why, they say, “O, you shall have 80 cents a head of your own money back.” This, I suppose, is one of the glorious benefits that we were promised under Confederation.

We now have to pay one-third more tariff than we formerly paid, and receive nothing in return but a little one-sided charity, or something like a pension, to meet the local demands of the country; we have to pay taxes to support this outrageous Confederation, in defiance of the voice of the people of this country. And, sir, that union of heart and spirit which is absolutely necessary for our people will never be brought about by forcing on them high tariffs, and other distasteful acts. The people of Nova Scotia never asked for a union with Canada, and the subject would have slept if it had not been for a few aspiring and interested politicians, who kept the question alive, and forced it upon the people by means best known to themselves.

We have heard a great deal said of late about public men changing their opinions; why, sir, public men must certainly be allowed to change their opinions and their associations when they see fit. Men may have grown wiser,—they may have formed more correct views of public policy. Nevertheless it must be acknowledged that when a sudden, and what appears to be a great change, takes place, it naturally produces a shock. I confess, sir, that I was shocked at some latter day conversions—conversions that seemed to take place almost in the twinkling of an eye. Such movements of the affections, whether personal or political, are a little out of nature. When we see old political enemies, abusing each other in all that is vindictive and malicious, and suddenly falling in love with each other, it cannot fail to make a deep impression on the public mind.

Look back at the Irish union; it was no union of the people, but only a scheme of politicians, and it is very clear that if Ireland had never been betrayed, if her representatives had never been bought and sold, there would be very little to dread in regard to Fenians at the present day. History say, “that the partnership of Ireland with England was secured by British gold.” Ireland was sold through her false sons, corrupted and induced by men who are held out before the world as traitors to their country. Take, for instance, the case of Castlereagh; it is said he bought and sold his country; his conscience was his punish-

[Page 71]

ment while he lived; and though he has been dead many years, his evil reputation lives after him. Our constitution has been seized upon, and bartered away to Canada without the consent of the lawful owners. And, sir, it is the duty of the people, the rightful owners, to use all legal and constitutional means to regain what has been forced from them. I desire to see Nova Scotia free from the control of Canada, and unfettered as the winds of heaven. If I stood alone on this question, I should feel it the greatest pride of my life, to vote for a repeal of this forced Union, and restore to the people their free constitutional rights. The people of this country want nothing but fair play, and the Government that tries to force anything else upon them, will only be sowing the wind to reap the whirlwind. Sir, this Confederation with Canada was conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity. Wherever the civil rights of a country is not associated with the Government, and the people understand that the Government may be one thing, their freedom and privileges another, the attraction to hold them together is lost. It is well known that the self-appointed delegates misrepresented the sentiments of the people of Nova Scotia; it was asserted that after a calm and mature consideration, they had pronounced their judgment in favor of a Union with Canada; of this assertion not one syllable has any existence in fact, or the shadow of fact. Sir, to affirm that the people of Nova Scotia was in favor of what they were against; to make the falsification of her sentiments the foundation of her ruin, and the ground of this distasteful Union, can best be answered by sensations of astonishment and disgust.

The time is come to look out upon the whole sweep of the horizon which encircles Nova Scotia, with a firm purpose to do our duty to the people of every part of it. I have opposed Confederation with Canada throughout. I stand acquitted to my conscience and to the country; and I now protest against it as tyrannous, oppressive, and unjust to the people of Nova Scotia. Although Nova Scotia is young yet we have a right to be proud of her; we have enjoyed the blessings of responsible government, the best and freest in the world, because self-government gives a power which no other form is capable. It incorporates every man with the country, and stimulates a spirit of liberty and strength. Is it then to be conceived that a people, who have enjoyed for many years the light and happiness of freedom, can be restrained and shut up in the gloom of slavery to Canadian rule? No, sir, you might as well try to stop with sand the running of a rapid river; the only consequence of such an attempt would be a temporary suspension. The forcing stream would find its way through new channels, and would spread destruction and ruin on every side; therefore the progress and liberty of a people are like the progress of the stream. Kept within its proper channel it is sure to make fruitful the country through which it runs; no human power can stop effectually its passage; and short sighted as well as foolhardy must be the man or men who would engage in such an undertaking. The Government of this country for some time back have not been represented by the true feeling of the people, because it has been too much influenced by passion, prejudice, or party interests, which may often give to the Executive apparent strength; but no Government can be either lasting or free which does not create confidence and energy amongst the people. The people elect their representatives to act under the constitution, to alter it,—they are appointed to exercise the function of legislators, and not to transfer them without the consent of the rightful owners. To have power is one thing, and to do right is another; so if the late Government had power to pass an act to change the constitution without the consent of the people, surely this Government have greater power (having the voice and true feeling of the people) to pass resolutions asking for a repeal of this forced Union. If this country is to be rescued from the perils which she is under, it must be done by an outspoken, manly, truthful, and bold declaration of the sentiments of the people of Nova Scotia. We ask no more than to be left in the enjoyment of the rights which God has given us; and if these rights are not restored again it will be hard to keep down the elements which exist in the breasts of an injured people.

It has been said by many of the friends of this forced Union with Canada that but for a few party politicians the scheme would have met with no opposition. This, sir, is no new strain. It has been sung a thousand times before. It has always been the tune of a weak Administration. Did ever you hear a minister acknowledge that the evils which fell on his country were the necessary consequence of his own incapacity or his own folly? What man (wherever he may have been) that has been in the possession of political power ever yet failed to charge the blunders and mischiefs resulting from his own measures upon those who had uniformly opposed those measures? Look back at the administration of Lord North. He lost a large portion of America to his country, yet he could find pretences for throwing the odium upon his opponents. He could throw it upon those who had forewarned him at every stage of his disastrous policy. O, no! it was owing to no fault of his administration; it was the boldness of Chatham, Fox, Burke, and others. These men, and men like them, would not join him in his American war. They would not join what they considered to be extreme folly. They declared him to be wanton. They pointed out plainly, both to him and the country, what the end would be; but he declared their opposition to be selfish and factious. He pursued his course, and the result is in history. It is an old and constitutional right of the people to canvas public measures and the merits of public men, and to demand from them an account of the trust reposed in them; and a people who would be afraid to call their representatives to an account for their actions in Parliament would deserve to be blotted out of all the records of freedom. They should not dishonor the cause of self-government by attempting any longer to exercise it. They should feel ashamed, and

[Page 72]

keep their unworthy hands entirely off from the cause of responsible liberty, if they are capable of being the victims of tricks so stale, so often practised, and so much worn out on serfs and slaves.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we meet here to look after our ship of state, and while a plank, a timber, or any part of her holds together, we should not forsake her. She has been disturbed and drove from her anchorage, yet she is still afloat, and is now freighted with the hopes and liberties of the people of Nova Scotia, she is now under canvas, and close by the wind with a good strong breeze; and although there may be some breakers ahead, yet I trust that she has a captain and crew that has already acquired an energy of advancement that will support her course clear of all the rocks of opposition, and bring her back to her old anchorage, under the good old flag that has braved for a thousand years the battle and the breeze.

Now, sir, we have heard a great amount said about constitutional law. That is all very well for legal minds to contend about; they will try to make the black side white and fair. But, sir, there is a law that stands far above all such law, a law of justice and fair play, that is enshrined in the hearts of the people, planted there by the God of nations It is not a collection of abstract essays on public questions of right or wrong. This is a law which is never silent; it speaks in the midst of armies; it is as diffusive as the air we breathe; it spreads itself by a sort of majestic influence over land and sea. Taking its rise in a sense of right, which even in early times was powerful enough to vindicate itself, it has gathered new strength with the advance of civilization, and it is attended in this age by sanctions which no people may disregard. Sir, we may glance back at the American contest with Great Britain. The war of the Revolution was undertaken in defence of a great principle; the spirit of liberty revolted against taxation, which was too light to be felt as a burden, but was too great a violation of principle to be borne by men who were jealous of the encroachments of power. They sniffed oppression in the tainted gale, they struck for freedom, and in the mighty struggle which ensued they had the sympathy of mankind, and the contest undertaken for liberty ended in independence.

But, sir, I believe that when our case is properly understood on the other side of the water, that England will do us justice. When I take into consideration the feeling of the people of this country, I feel my share of the great responsibility of this House The country is in a crisis. I feel it to be a crisis; and I am ready to say God speed to the man or men who shall carry us honorably and safely through it. Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I desire to say a word in regard to the question of disloyalty that has been charged against a large majority of the people of Nova Scotia. We who stand up and vindicate the rights of the people, have been called rebels, traitors, and annexationists. Now, sir, I would ask, was O’Connell a rebel for asking that his countrymen should have equal rights with other British subjects? Was Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington rebels when agitating for a repeal of the Corn Laws? Were all the great politicians of England rebels, who from time to time agitated a repeal of the laws which they believed unfair to their countrymen? No sir; a thousand times no. I am fully convinced that every argument urged against the step we are called upon to take, might have been advanced with equal justice against any of the changes I have enumerated. O, but many of our opponents say, that the people of Nova Scotia are ignorant, and are not capable of judging for themselves—that they do not know what freedom is, and that they have no right to name freedom till they are fit to use their freedom. Why, sir, such a doctrine is very like the man who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise in slavery, they may, indeed, wait forever.

Sir, the cry of loyalty will not long continue against the principles of liberty. Loyalty is a noble thing, a judicious principle; but loyalty not associated with liberty is only a corrupt principle. Sir, you may boast of a union with Canada, but you have no union of the people. Any Act of Parliament that would destroy the liberty of the people is not worth the paper that it is written on; it is dead born from the womb. Sir, the bulk of public opinion of Nova Scotia are before this House, and say, we want our liberties—we received them from God, and we will not resign them to Canada; and we ask for a repeal of this wicked and forced Union. Therefore, you men of Nova Scotia, cherish liberty as you love it; cherish its securities, as you wish to preserve it; and be true to God, to your country, and to your duty.

Our opponents may boast of their bone and sinew, wealth, intelligence, respectability, virtue, and everything that sounds glorious; but, sir, what does a majority of the people of Nova Scotia say? We mistrusted your political conduct all along, but now we have weighed you in the balance, and you are found wanting. We have paid you off for your shortcomings, and sent good and trustworthy Antis to take your place—men in whom we have confidence.

I have spoken out freely what I have felt it my duty to say; we must look the dangers which threaten us in the face. The people of this country look to the action of this House with the deepest interest, and I trust that the action of this House will fully meet their expectations. And, sir, those who are now contending for the rights of the people, may be barked at and denounced for a time; the surges of opposition may dash against us; but when the storm is gone by, reason and truth will triumph. I hope, therefore, that for our own sakes, and for the sake of Nova Scotia, we shall act unanimously in voting for the resolutions now before the House.

MR. CHAMBERS’ SPEECH.

(CONCLUDED.)

Mr. CHAMBERS said:—Last evening I was unable to conclude my remarks on this question, and I therefore take this opportunity of resuming, and promising to confine myself strictly to the question before the House.

[Page 73]

My desire is to shew my constituents that the vote which I intend to give will be intelligently and conscientiously given. When I ceased speaking I was making reference to the stamp act—an act grievously borne in the Province. It was such an act that caused the Colonies, which now form the United States, to revolt, although their loyalty was as true as that of any people within the Dominions We never thought such an imposition would be put upon us. From all I can learn, this stamp act is likely to be most inconvenient in the operation. A man living nine miles from a Post Office, before he can draw a bill or give a valid receipt must go that distance for a stamp; the result will, in many cases, be that the business cannot be done. If a person wishes to draw a bill for a hundred dollars, and one cent over, the stamp will cost him six cents, and that must be lost if the holder wishes to proceed for its collection. The easiest way, in such a case, would be to forgive part of the debt. Was such inconvenience submitted to in any other country? Now as to the newspaper tax. Take the Eastern Chronicle, of which paper I think a good deal, because it did us a vast amount of good in the late contest, for example. It is published twice a week; the postage will be forty cents, and the duty, at fifteen per cent., on the paper will make twenty cents more, being three shillings additional which each subscriber will have to pay. This monstrous tax will bring the subscription up to thirteen shillings a year. The proprietors tell me that they expect a serious reduction in their subscription list as the result, for they must either take only seven shillings a year for their paper, or they must charge thirteen shillings to their subscribers.

It was said in the election contest that the Canadians would bring down their capital in abundance, and this statement turned a number of votes, because the young men thought they could easily obtain the means of going into business; but what was the result? Have we seen these prophecies fulfilled? It is true a new Bank has been established, but money instead of being at six per cent as before, can hardly be had at seven per cent. If the additional charge of one per cent benefitted our banks it would not be of so much consequence, but it is paid over to the Canadian treasury. We have been accused by the hon. member for Inverness of bringing forward weak arguments, but I might show the House at length how weak were the arguments of his superior, Mr. Archibald. In the Colchester contest we held fourteen meetings, and instead of talking about Confederation he spoke about the mines and minerals, and said, “you must support me because I helped to settle that question.” But in the western part of the county at one of the meetings the people refused to hear Mr. Archibald at first, on the ground that he had refused to hear their petitions; but my colleague told them that if they wished to hear any one on the other side they must hear Mr. Archibald, and then they agreed to hear him provided he would stick to the question of Confederation. He promised to do so, and commenced at considerable length about the Acadia Iron Mines, and the steam works which were being erected there, stating that hereafter the company would have four millions of consumers instead of 350,000, as the iron would go duty free. This was a pretty forcible argument, and some one said, “how are you going to answer that?” “Fortune favors the brave,” and it so happened that one of us had a copy of the Canadian tariff, and what was our answer? That under that tariff the products of the company’s works went in duty free, and under Confederation it could go no freer. The people began to laugh at the hon. gentleman, and instead of attending the other meetings there he paid visits privately to the people.

At the next meeting he had five individuals to assist his cause, but he did not attend himself. A learned Doctor offered to show us some of the benefits of Confederation, if we would give him an hour, and the sum and substance of his argument was that we could make babies as cheaply here as in Canada. We cannot send manufactured goods to Canada, because their water power and machinery is so far superior to ours, and when we can get our machinery equal to their’s at present, they will be far in advance of us in the market. They get coal in return cargoes from England; they can get their iron cheaper than we can supply them, and the fact is they are now sending stoves down here to compete with our foundries. One of the arguments throughout the election, we know, was that manufactures would be established here, but now we find the Canadians sending down merchandise of all kinds. Will they take our butter and cheese in return? Not at all, for, while we heard a great deal about orders for cheese, the Montreal papers were stating that Halifax would be a good market for butter, if it were good. They will not take our pork, for in Halifax we see as many porkers from Canada staring us in the face as would make a dinner for every Confederate in the country. Orders for leather, it is true, came down at one time, but they were not repeated, for it was found that leather was no higher in Montreal than in Halifax, and the orders, in future, for that article, are not likely to be of any considerable amount. They will not carry cargoes of our coal in steamers, but it is said they will take our gold. That reminds me of a society of attorneys in London who agreed that they would take nothing but gold from their clients; in a short time it was found that one of their number had taken silver, and, on being brought to account, his excuse was that he had taken all the man’s gold first. Another was found taking coppers, and his excuse was that he had taken all the gold and silver. So these Canadians, after taking all our gold, will take our silver and copper also. Why should we pay more for a Canadian article that we can buy cheaper in England? What we want is to be allowed to get our goods where we choose. I now will show you what is said by an advocate of Confederation on this subject. The Christian Messenger is a good authority on most subjects, but it appears to have gone wrong, somehow or other, on the subject of Confederation. What does this paper say when it finds the shoe pinching its own corns?

[Page 74]

“Another highly injudicious tax is that of 15 per sent on the importation of paper. This duty was long ago abolished in Great Britain as a barrier to the spread of information and a relic of the dark ages and yet we are to have it imposed on us at this day. The object of the impost is doubtless to encourage the manufacture of paper in this country. But we do not think the publishers throughout the Dominion should be made to pay a tax for the purpose of benefitting four or five manufacturers, who cannot compete with other countries, let us have a free trade in this article so essential to the mental food of the whole people. We protest against this as a decided retrograde movement.”

What we want is free trade all over the world. We are told that we should try this Confederation, but I am quite satisfied with what I have seen of its operation during six months. Here I remember a little story told of the King of Abyssinia and a Yankee, who told him that he would teach his donkey to read in fourteen years’ time if he was paid a sufficient sum of money. Now the King of Abyssinia puts to death all those who do not keep their promises, and how do you think the Yankee looked at the matter. I will take the money, he said, and live comfortably for the fourteen years, and by that time either the donkey or myself or the king will be dead. So it will be with us. If we try Confederation for a few years we shall either see its advantages or we shall all be dead. Wherever we look over the face of this country we see opposition to the Union. Farmers, fishermen, mechanics are all opposed to it, and demand repeal The majority of the bankers and capitalists also entertain the same opinions. This feeling originated among the people themselves, and has not been stimulated by politicians as certain gentlemen would have us believe. It is the duty of every patriotic Nova Scotian to oppose this Union. I must say we would willingly pay Mr. Blanchard $100,000 if he would get us rid of this detestable yoke that is now upon our necks.

But the hon. member asks, What will happen if we do not get Repeal? I have heard that question asked before. “What then?” is a momentous question. I asked a gentleman the other day how he would answer it. He replied, “Mr. Chambers, I advise you to be careful of your property; we have a large stake in the country, and whatever you do, seek a change in the law.” But suppose we cannot get a change? He would not answer that question. I say that the people of Nova Scotia are loyal now, and wish to continue so, and if they only get Repeal, they will be ten times more loyal than ever. They do not seek Annexation, we do not wish to participate in the war debt of the United States—it would be a greater victory to get Repeal without Annexation. We wish to live as we have lived. We do not ask for a Republican form of Government or any change in our institutions. We do not wish to elect our own Governors; but I believe that the man who gets us Repeal will become our Governor somehow or other, for the people will be so delighted they will have a mock election, if they cannot do anything else. We only wish to be placed where we were before, but, if the agitation continues, I cannot answer for the people. I know that they are determined to have Repeal, and if they do not they will be exasperated. Whatever the consequences may be, the Confederates will be answerable. If they go on exasperating the people as they have been doing, they will drive them into Annexation.

Hon. SPEAKER.—I cannot allow you to proceed in that way. You had better not express what you believe.

Mr. CHAMBERS.—Well, the people shake their heads sometimes, and wink a little. All I will say, in conclusion, is that we must work together, and be true to ourselves and our country, and we need have no fears of the future.

Afternoon Session.

The House met at 3 o’clock.

[…]

MR. FREEMAN’S SPEECH.

Mr. FREEMAN said—I do not intend to make a lengthy speech or to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily, but I will offer a few remarks on the question which has so deeply disturbed our once peaceful and happy Province. Were I to consult my own feelings I would keep my seat, and give place to gentlemen who are prepared to address the House with greater effect than I can, and who are awaiting their turn to deliver their

[Page 75]

speeches. But I feel that I have an important duty to discharge, and shall I not raise my voice, feeble though it may be, in condemnation of the British North America Act, which has imposed so many burdens on us, and deprived us of our liberties, I shall betray the trust reposed in me by my constituents. I have taken notes of topics which suggested remarks, but the gentlemen who preceded me have occupied nearly the whole ground. I may say at the outset that I heartily endorse the resolutions laid on the table by the Attorney General touching this question, asking a repeal of the Union, and representing our case so fully as they do. I feel pleased also at the unanimity of feeling which gentlemen around these benches have expressed on this subject, as also at the manner in which the Government have taken hold of it, and I am happy to say that the county I represent is also pleased with the action of the Government thus far. We have had a fair trial of this act for five months and upwards, and the results are pretty well known to the people of this country. In that time we have lost much in a financial point of view. Take, for instance, the calculation which the hon. member for Inverness gave us—he told us that we could appropriate $329,000. That, I believe, consists of the subsidy given to Nova Scotia. It was said also that the local revenue would probably amount to $142,000, and these two amounts give $366,000. That will be about all the revenue that we shall have to dispose of. It is generally acknowledged that our debt will be eight and a half millions, leaving us $28,000 to provide for interest. The Provincial Secretary told us that the School grant would probably be $234,000; the road and bridge service in 1866 was $244,000, and these items alone give us $493,000, and makes a deficiency of $27,000. Then we have all the other local services to provide for, as follows:—

This will be an enormous loss, and there will be no other mode that I see of meeting it than by direct taxation. It will never do for us to resort to that, for the treatment which we would receive in return from our constituents would be something like that which was visited on the heads of the thirty-two gentlemen who inflicted this Act upon us. The evils of the measure are not only those which my calculations show: Mr. Rose tells us that the Dominion has a floating debt of sixty million dollars, a portion of which we must pay, and there are other disadvantages which have been fully gone over by the gentlemen who preceded me. We have been tauntingly told that the elections run on the 18th September were run not only on the Confederation scheme, but on side issues such as the school law. My personal knowledge as to other counties is somewhat limited, but as to the county which I represent I can say that such is not the case. The Union question was the all-important question before the electors. The candidates who were running their elections in the interest of Canada spent considerable sums of money, and brought other influences to bear on the election, and although an enormous sum was laid out on one bridge and road just before the election, the Union candidates secured only one-fourth of the votes of the county. It was not run on the side issues, although the candidates holding Union principles did all they could to rally the old parties, and to sustain themselves by allusions to other questions.

Among the many disadvantages which must result from this obnoxious Act is this,—that the readjustment of the representation by population in the Ottawa Parliament will in course of time give us a smaller proportion of members than we have now, while the representation of Upper Canada will be increased. The scale of increase of population shows that the increase of Canada was by the census of 1866 equal to 4.34 per cent., while that of Nova Scotia was but 1.82 per cent. The population in Upper Canada was—

The estimated population of N. Scotia was—

Making a result as follows:

At this rate of increase, Upper Canada progressing much faster than Nova Scotia, and the representation being readjusted every ten years, that of Canada will increase, and that of Nova Scotia decrease. This will be a grievous wrong to this country. According to the scheme, Nova Scotia receives 80 cents per head, and $60,000 per annum, while New Brunswick also receives 80 cents per head, $50,000 per annum, and an additional sum of $63,000 for ten years. In this an injustice was done to us. We have a larger population than New Brunswick, and why should she require $63,000 more than us? The reason assigned may have been that she was engaged in railway extension; but were we not in just the same position? But the fact that New Brunswick did not readily come into the scheme, may account for the extra grant which may have had some effect in producing the sudden change of feeling which was witnessed in her second election. The people of this country also feel deeply aggrieved at not being allowed to speak on this question at the polls. We feel that a Union between No-

[Page 76]

va Scotia and Canada is not desirable, because the legislative policy required by the two Provinces being different, Canada requiring a protection which taxes the breadstuffs which we must buy from abroad; but we feel that even if the advantages were on our side, the treatment which we have received would have been utterly unjust. I was glad to hear by the remarks of Mr. Pineo that he was unfavorable to this part of the transaction. He seemed to be displeased at the way in which the scheme was carried, although he is willing to accept the situation. If the hon. gentleman thought that the Government had done wrong in imposing this Act upon the people he should have protested against it, for I feel that no one having the spirit which should actuate every Nova Scotian, can fail to express his condemnation of the policy which has prohibited the people of this country from exercising the franchise on an all important question affecting their interests so vitally as this does. I feel that I can endorse all that the resolutions contain; they are suitable to the occasion, and express the feelings of the people. I trust that they will be unanimously adopted, and when our delegates go home with the request of this House, that the country be relieved of the burthen imposed on us. I have an abiding faith in the Queen, and the men administering the affairs of the mother country, that they will hear and accede to our petition.

MR. COCHRAN’S SPEECH.

Hon. Mr. COCHRAN said:—I have attentively listened to this debate from its commencement, and must congratulate the House and the country on the ability with which it has been conducted. If it had not been for some remarks that fell from the hon. member for Inverness, respecting the constituency I have the honour to represent, I hardly think I would have troubled the House with any observations, and certainly I shall be very short in what I intend now to say. The hon. gentleman having had an election of his own to run, was hardly in a position to know the actual state of things in this city. He had himself a hard battle to fight, and it was only by the merest chance that he came here at all. When the question of Union came first before the people of this country, I took that view of it which I have ever since held. When Dr. Tupper came out a candidate for this county, the Anti-union party thought that the time had come to make a move, and I was waited upon by several gentlemen asking me to come out. I paid no attention to them for a while, but when I saw that my services might be useful to the party, I consented. At that time I had taken a passage for Europe in the Cunard steamer, and I determined to go notwithstanding the approaching election. In going round and testing the feelings of the people of Halifax, as well as those outside of the city, I found that one-half of us might be away and the matter would be easily settled in our favour. But on my return, I found that about 200 persons who had signed the requisition to us were prepared to vote against us, or not to vote at all. The Government of Canada sent a despatch, requiring every public officer to vote for the Union candidates. Mr. Longley used his power as the head of the Railway Department. Even the city officials were threatened by a gentleman who had been long in the City Council, and was fond of boasting that he had been instrumental in electing several Mayors. Such was the state of things when the elections came off. I have no hesitation in saying that if an election were held in the city to-morrow, we would get a large majority over any Union candidates that might be brought forward. The men who ran perfectly wild in favor of Union feel very differently now. It has been stated that the most respectable merchants of Halifax are Unionists. Now go up Water street, from Moren’s to West’s, and you will find four merchants against Confederation to one in favor of it.

The tariff—one of the first acts of the Confederate Parliament—is certainly not an argument in favor of Union. Neither is the Stamp Act, under which every man is obliged to affix a long list of stamps to every bill and note of hand. This will be a pretty costly ornament to the people of this country. Just look at the tariff—fifty per cent. higher than our old one. If a man buys four bushels of corn he must pay 40 cents or 2s. on it. On the other hand wine is reduced to ten cents—the same as that upon c[…]. The rich man can drink his wine at a […] rate, but the poor man must pay more for his food. I have been forty years in this country, and I never paid a cent on corn and cornmeal and rye flour before. Our coal is obliged to pay a 20 per cent duty in the American market, and yet the Canadians allow the American coal to come into their ports duty free. That shows us plainly how we may expect to be treated by the majority in the Confederate Parliament. I have no doubt Sir John A. MacDonald would gladly impose a duty on American coal, but his supporters from Upper Canada will not allow him to do so. I have no doubt we shall have a 30 per cent. tariff imposed upon us ere any great length of time has elapsed. When they wished to conciliate the Maritime Provinces they lowered the tariff to 15 per cent., but we know that under the expensive system of government established in the Dominion this rate will not suffice to meet the expenditures. They propose buying the Hudson’s Bay Territory, and building the Intercolonial Railway, but where is all the money to come from? Not from a tariff of 15 per cent. certainly, when we know that Canada could not meet her ordinary obligations for years under a 20 per cent tariff. I trust, let me say in conclusion, that we shall not be kept in this Union much longer, but that Nova Scotia will be permitted to regain her old constitution and privileges, under which she has enjoyed so much prosperity and happiness. I have travelled over Europe and America, but nowhere have I seen a happier and more contented community than Nova Scotia. I left the old country in my youth, and perhaps I was not then the most loyal of men. I was, like a good many of my countrymen, carried away with the notion that England was an enemy, but when I came to Nova Scotia, and saw the state of

[Page 77]

things here, I was satisfied and have lived in the Province ever since. I found that the man who would not be loyal to this country must be a fool or an idiot. I believe at the time of the Fenian excitement, had this country been invaded, my countrymen would have been true to their allegiance; I never heard a man speaking in support of the Fenians or saying there should be Fenians among us. I am sorry to be obliged to confess, if matters progress as they have been doing, if we do not get out of this Union, much of this good feeling will be swamped. I believe that peace and order are gone from Nova Scotia forever if this Union is perpetuated. I believe that many persons were once in favor of Union, but when they came to see the iniquity of the present scheme, they changed their opinions very soon. Nothing showed more clearly the feelings of the people of Nova Scotia than the departure of Dr. Tupper and Mr. Archibald from this city a few days ago on their way to Canada. These men were a credit to any country—their ability entitles them to respect, but when they left not a farewell cheer rose from the crowd assembled on the wharf; one would actually have thought it was a funeral. But when Mr. Howe left he left amid the hearty cheers of the large crowd that saw him depart on his patriotic mission. Such is the feeling of the people of Nova Scotia generally.

The men who sit on these benches indicate very clearly the sentiment of the country. I do not find fault with the people of Canada. I believe they found themselves in a position of difficulty, and could see no other means of extricating themselves except by annexing the Maritime Provinces. As respects the men who betrayed their country in this House, we cannot but censure them most loudly. One of the gentlemen who now sits in the other end of the building met a friend one day on the street, when the question of Confederation was under consideration, and said, “We are sold.” That hon. gentleman, however, was found voting in favor of Union, and now he has been rewarded. So far as the resolutions are concerned, I agree with every line of them, and hope when the people of England look at the real position of matters they will mete out to us that justice to which we are entitled at their hands.

SPEECH OF HON. PROVINCIAL SECRETARY.

Hon. PROV. SEC’Y. said:—In rising to address the House at this time I feel much embarrassed, from the fact that in the opening of this debate three or four legal gentlemen addressed the House, taking up the constitutional argument, and following after them came a number of able merchants who took up the financial part of the question, and thus the matter has been so fully discussed, and so completely exhausted, that a lengthy speech would be merely adding to what has already been said, in a discussion which, in my opinion, should not detain the House long after to-day. It is important that the debate should be brought to a close as early as possible, and at the same time it is important that every gentleman should have an opportunity to express his views, in order that the people of this Dominion and Great Britain should know the unanimity of sentiment prevailing throughout the length and breadth of the land. I speak to-day from a different standpoint from that occupied by any other gentleman, from the fact that I am free to confess openly to the House that I am a Unionist as far as a union of the Maritime Provinces goes. When the resolution was brought down and passed authorizing a delegation to Prince Edward Island, to form a scheme for such a union, it met with my hearty approval, and I looked forward to the consummation of the measure with a large amount of interest. But I was deeply disappointed when I found those gentlemen who went on that delegation closed their labors at the instance of a number of delegates from Canada, who desired to frame and carry out what they were pleased to term the larger Union. I felt, with regard to the Maritime Provinces, that inasmuch as our interests were identical, a union would have the effect of removing duties which interfered with commercial interchange, equalizing the currencies, removing restrictions from trade, and reducing the legislative expenses, without any risk being incurred, but with the certainty of the general interests being advanced. When we look around our Province, and see that we are only connected by a narrow neck of land to New Brunswick, that nearly all our ports are open from one year’s end to the other, and that we are a fishing and maritime people requiring trade with all the world, it is obvious that a connection with Canada, whose harbors are closed for the greater part of the year, must result in great disadvantage to this colony. I said that our ports are open for the whole year,—it is really so, at some seasons some few of the smaller harbors are closed, but as a general rule such is not the case. As a maritime and fishing people it is necessary, in order to the prosperity of the country, that we should have as nearly a free trade policy as possible, while Canada, being peculiarly situated, requires a protective policy in every sense of the word. Therefore I say in all sincerity that in my opinion there is no confederation of Nova Scotia with Canada that can result in anything but disaster and taxation, beyond what the country can bear for some time to come.

I said that I looked forward with interest to the consummation of a scheme for a Maritime Union, and that my disappointment was great when I found that that project was abandoned, but still I looked forward in hope that some scheme might be arranged whereby the Confederation of all the Colonies might be carried out without seriously impairing the interests of the smaller Provinces, and when the scheme was brought down I was prepared to give it the most careful consideration, and to adopt it if I found it anything like what such a scheme should be. But when I came to examine it, and to find that it seemed to have been concocted for the particular advantage of Canada, and that the interests of this country would suffer very materially from a union on such a basis, then, in common with nineteen-twentieths of the people of this Province, I made up my mind

[Page 78]

to do all I could to defeat it, and I have never ceased from that effort down to the present time. I know it has been said that Mr. Howe’s efforts caused all the agitation in the country, and that if it had not been for him the measure would have been approved of at the polls. I stand here as the representative of a county in which was held the third, if not the second meeting on the subject, a year before it was known which side of the question Mr. Howe would take; and no matter what his views were—although I am free to confess that he gave us a very material addition of strength when he came out—the feeling would have been just as strong as it is to-day. I will endeavor to-day to make a short and practical speech, and in order to show the correctness of the views I have already advanced I will take up a few figures and support my position by them. As it is not in accordance with Parliamentary usage to refer to a debate that has been closed, I will be unable to approach a former speech of the hon. member for Inverness, excepting by way of supposition, and we will therefore suppose that the Government came before the Legislature with a speech from the Throne, in which it was stated that the financial condition of the country was unsatisfactory, and that the leader of the Opposition, to show that such a statement should not have been made, told us that in consequence of Confederation being carried out the Province had run into debt to the General Government $600,000 before six months had elapsed. If that were the case it would prove very conclusively that the Confederation was not at all satisfactory. No argument in favor of the existing state of affairs could be adduced from that state of things, because the hon. gentleman, in saying that the country was in a better financial condition than ever before—there being $329,000 in the treasury to carry on the government with—would be obliged to admit in the next breath that we had run into debt by $600,000. I am not willing, however, that the argument should go before the country even in that way, but I will read from Mr. Rose’s statement a passage bearing on the subject. Before doing so, however, I would remark that the assertions about the Canadian Government having been largely in advance to us will be equally applicable if, on the 2d of July, that Government had paid over to this Province a portion of our subsidy. The Finance Minister, in that case, might, with equal truth, come forward with the assertion that we were largely in advance in our receipts. Mr. Rose states the matter thus:—

“Statement C gives in detail the receipts and payments in Nova Scotia, and a glance at it shows as

But since then, there has been advanced on account of the subsidy to be paid to Nova Scotia, $317,449

And there has been paid for interest due to the Messrs. Baring, 242,428 — 559,877

From which if we deduct the surplus of receipts just mentioned we shall find that Nova Scotia has at this time received an advance of $340,602

This is the position up to the 1st December instant, but while I make the statement, I hope no member will entertain any sectional feeling—I give the facts as they are, but these figures, it should be remembered, fluctuate very much, and of course a great deal of this expenditure is on account of the debt of $8,000,000 with which Nova Scotia agreed to come into the Union. We have in fact to find the money to make up a portion of that debt, and having found the money, the Dominion is bound to find the money to meet the interest. It is not as if the debts of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick had existed at the time of the Union; for then all the Dominion would have had to do would have been to provide the interest; but there are current engagements of the Maritime Provinces, maturing from time to time, which the Dominion has to find money for at once, and that perhaps not merely to the amount of seven or eight millions, but to the extent to which their liabilities exceed this sum, and after this comes interest on the whole, the excess of which over the interest on the seven or eight millions will have to be deducted from the subsidies to be paid.”

This is a plain statement of the facts, and it places the whole matter in so clear a light that there can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that we really are not indebted to Canada in any sum for advances. I have prepared a short statement which will shew how the matter stands, excluding the amounts paid on account of the two railroads. I take the amounts as Mr. Rose gave them, making $219,275, the five months subsidy, which is all that should be chargeable, and it leaves $84,133 in our favor. I do not deny that the Canadian Government may be in advance of the receipts, because they have paid something on account of our debt. If that debt was six and a half millions, and we were entitled to go in with eight millions, they were bound to pay us the balance at any time, and on the principle which they have adopted, if, on the 2nd of July they had been called upon for the additional two and a half millions, they would have charged that against our account as so much advanced. I proceed in the next place to give a comparative statement of the amount of duty collected in Nova Scotia in 1866 under our tariff of that year, and of the amount that we would have paid in that year under a Canadian tariff. I have had every item calculated, and although it may possibly be erroneous to the extent of a few dollars, yet I believe it will be found in the main correct. I take 1866, because it is the only complete year that we can calculate by.

Thus we see that under a Canadian tariff we would have paid on the importations of 1866 $427,539.98 more than under our tariff of that year. It is true that Mr. Johnson has

[Page 79]

made a calculation producing a different result, making it appear that Nova Scotia would only lose $59,000, but any such statement is preposterous. The free goods could not so nearly balance the account, and any statement shewing such a result is intended to deceive and mislead. The same thing was done with regard to the imports of New Brunswick, and a most competent person come forward and shewed that in that statement an omission was made of $200,000. The whole matter is carried on by that kind of deception. I said that this country required free trade as nearly as possible, and that will be plainly shewn when we come to place the protective duty of Canada on her, for the importations of Nova Scotia, in 1866, were equal to $38 per head, while those of Canada, commonly considered the most wealthy Colony, only amounted to $15 per head. When our importations, under a ten per cent. tariff, come to $38 per head, is it not plain that the raising of that tariff must be advantageous to the country? I find also that Canada expends but 86 cents per head for local purposes, while we expend $2, and the same proportion prevails throughout. This remark brings me to the consideration of our revenue and assets under Confederation, and I think the statement I made of the figures, a few evenings ago, will be found in the main correct. I will shew first our revenue from the various sources:

Revenue.

Estimated Expenditure.

I ask the House if that is the position that a Province, rising in the scale in which we have risen for the last ten years, should be placed? I blush for those who have placed Nova Scotia in that position? In addition to the amounts which I have stated, there has been paid since the 1st of July on the new Provincial Building $35,653, and there will be yet to be paid $20,000, making $55,653. Then coming to the department of education, we find that we must make an advance of $45,000 as a loan to the counties, which will, it is true, be repaid in the subsequent year, but which must be provided out of this year’s revenue Again, we are obliged to provide 2-3 of $80,000 for the new Poors’ Asylum, amounting to $54,000; and at least $25,000 for interest on excess of public debt. These items give $179,653 to be added to the deficit of $142,085.74 which I stated before, making a total of $321,738.74 as a deficit for the present year.

I stated before that I have made this statement of figures, not with a view to deceive, but to show the House and the country what we must expect if we are to remain in Confederation. It would be useless for me to try to make it appear that we have $200,000 or $300,000 to spare from the treasury when we shall certainly be short over the amount which I have put down for roads and bridges.

It has been repeatedly said by the advocates of Confederation: “we have given you a new Act,—you found fault with the Quebec scheme, and therefore we have improved it.” I should like to know in what the improvement consists,—the Quebec scheme left us the right to impose export duties, but that has been taken away by the Imperial Act. The new arrangement gives us $60,000 per annum, but it gave a like sum to all the other Provinces, so that we, who suffer, must have to pay a part of this very money, and the right of laying on an export duty is vested in the General Government. That is just the position of things under the new arrangement. As regards the constitutional part of the argument, I would just say that no doubt many members recollect the celebrated campaign which Dr. Tupper made in the western counties,—he held a meeting at Weymouth, among other places, and what was the ground of his argument there? It was that Howe, Archibald and McCully were governing the country in defiance of the well understood wishes of the people, and were going contrary to all British precedent in doing so. He made a most pathetic speech, telling us that those gentlemen were going to govern the country in that way for four years. Well, they did so, but at the end of that time the people had a perfect right to displace them if they pleased. Dr. Tupper, however, thought they had not the right to hold the government for an hour; he declared they were infringing on the constitution, and laid down the doctrine that the constitution belonged to the whole people—that every child in breathing his first breath took in a portion of it—and that any man who undertook to govern the country in defiance of the wishes of the people would be depriving them of the privileges which belong to them under responsible government.

The hon. member for Inverness told us that the Attorney General was the Tory of Tories, and boasted that himself had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, learning the principles of Howe, Young, and other leading men of the Liberal party. I looked at him with amaze-

[Page 80]

ment,—is it possible that he has imbibed the principles which those men laid down, and yet so far forget himself and everything preached and practised by the leading men on the Liberal side of politics in this country, as to stand up here and tell the people that they had no more right to control the Government, or to be heard on any change in the constitution, than the people of Russia,—for his statement in substance was that? He reminds me of what an American gentleman said that Lord Derby remarked in England on being asked what were Earl Russell’s politics,—his reply was, “when Earl Russell is in power he is a Tory, but when out of power he is a Liberal.” So when the hon. member for Inverness was out of power he was a Liberal, but when he got the ship hand he was a bigger Tory than the Atty General, who, in this debate has been advocating true conservative principles: the right of the people of the country to govern themselves. I have never taken a very decided stand on either side of politics,—I have been a Conservative, but only this far, that I was always willing when it could be shown that a change was necessary, to aid with both hands the advancement of the true interests of the country.

The hon. gentleman also referred to Halifax being strongly confederate, and spoke of the wealth and intelligence of the metropolis. When I read the accounts of the July celebration in Halifax, I thought that all the citizens must have adopted Union principles, but I little thought that a large amount of the funds expended in that celebration were paid out of the public chest. That expenditure was made, I believe, for no other purpose than to make the people of the rural districts believe that Halifax was strongly confederate. That brings to my mind the scenes enacted in the country on the 1st of July; while in Halifax the day was celebrated with something like rejoicing, what was the fact in the country? From one end to the other nothing but mourning and grief were exhibited; the shutters were closed from morning to night; the flags were at half-mast; Dr. Tupper hung in effigy from every barn along the road, and everywhere the signs of deep regret at the loss of the country’s liberties were displayed. The hon. member for Inverness asked the other day what we expected to accomplish by this agitation. I will tell him: we expect to accomplish a complete repeal of the Union as far as Nova Scotia is concerned. We will approach the British Government as loyal and intelligent men, the descendants of men who preferred a home in the wilderness of this country to ease and affluence under the American flag. We will tell them that the Act of Confederation was forced on our country. Our people, having had time to consider the matter, are perfectly satisfied that to continue the present state of things would bring nothing but ruin and disgrace upon them, and we therefore come here as loyal and loving subjects of the Queen, to ask for a repeal of the Act.

I think I can tell the hon. member what the answer will be also. That Parliament will say we were deceived into the passage of the Act and did not give it full consideration—we are far from wishing to force the loyal people of Nova Scotia into a confederation against their wishes. Take back your constitution, and so long as you remain loyal and true to the British flag and feel a desire to live as a colony of Great Britain, we will do all we can to advance your interests in time of peace and protect you in time of war. The question “what then” was asked the other day. I will tell the House “what then,”—a long loud shout will go up from one end of the country to the other of God save the Queen, and many a poor man, whose daily food has been made dearer by the legislation under which we are suffering, will join in the shout. When that day comes a new stimulus will be given to every branch of industry. The fisherman will go forth with his line, the miner will take up his shovel, and the ship carpenter his axe. The merchant will make large importations, and new life will be infused into the people. I have not the slightest doubt that if we gain repeal, our importations, instead of continuing to fall off as they did last year, will soon be doubled. If the right of self-government be restored to us the people would not feel even the fifteen per cent tariff which we have been paying Canada a heavy burthen—for the great trouble with us now is that we receive no corresponding benefits for the taxes that we pay. If repeal be granted, as I have said, the country will go forward with new strength and vigor, trade will be opened in new channels, the waves of prosperity will roll in on Nova Scotia’s shores, and our Province will enjoy the position that nature has destined her to occupy, as one of the finest gems in the British crown.

Mr. HOOPER—I intended addressing the House on several occasions, but so much has already been said on this subject that I feel I cannot invest it with any new novelty, and therefore I shall only say that I heartily endorse the sentiments contained in the resolutions, and shall vote in their support.

MR. DesBRISAY’S SPEECH.

Mr. DesBRISAY said:—Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavor in addressing the House to be as concise as possible, but I feel that this question is of such vast importance that I would be avoiding a duty I owe to those whom I have the honor to represent if I were to pass it by with a silent vote. One thing, sir, is indisputable, that Nova Scotians are not to-day as free nor as contented as they were previous to the Confederation of this Province with Canada. I know it is asserted that the Anti-Confederate party are to blame for the discontent that unhappily exists in the country, but this statement cannot be supported by sound argument. Some of the warmest advocates of Confederation do not hesitate to declare that the mode of procedure as regards Nova Scotia was most high-handed and outrageous, and I venture to assert that there is not on record a more cool, determined defiance of popular rights than was exhibited by the principal agents in the transaction here in Nova Scotia. It has been frequently asserted that the leading men of this Province, years ago,

[Page 81]

advocated the Union of the Provinces. It was, I admit, urged that the union was desirable, and if wisely managed might result in good, but to say that such a scheme as this, with all the advantages for Canada and disadvantages for us, which are its main characteristics, was ever dreamt of, much less publicly proclaimed, is not consistent with fact. It was never once hinted, at least up to the time when its advocates saw a chance of its being effected, that the people should not be consulted on a measure like this which would affect themselves and their children for future generations. Tell me not that the constitution of our country can be changed, and the rights of this people bartered away without reference to those whose interests are immediately affected. If the arguments of the hon. member for Inverness and his friends be correct, then any Legislature, however corrupt, can wholly destroy the liberties of the people, and they must tamely submit. If a Legislature, elected as ours was in 1863, can act as they did, and still be within the constitution, then the people cease to have a voice in the management of their affairs, and self-government is only a delusion and a snare. Then the most monstrous acts can be committed by those who, pretending to represent others, have their own personal aggrandizement chiefly in view.

I want to know why the people of Nova Scotia occupy a different position from the people of New Brunswick. This is a question that has not been, and cannot be, answered The people of that Province had two separate elections, but the electors of Nova Scotia were not allowed the right of expressing their opinions upon the most momentous question that ever engaged the attention of this country. No satisfactory reason can be given why the people of Nova Scotia, who are certainly just as intelligent and capable of coming to a satisfactory conclusion on matters of importance as the people of the neighboring Province, should have been denied the right which the latter enjoyed. On every principle of justice they should have been consulted, and the members of the former Legislature who declared one day the Union to be impracticable, and on the next recorded their votes in favor of it, deceived the people whom they had been sent to this House to represent. One of the arguments of the Confederates has been that this Province having comparatively limited resources, was to be united to a country of immense wealth—that we were to enter a partnership in which one partner—that is Nova Scotia—would have a small capital, while the other—that is Canada—would have an enormous income, and that we would receive benefits much greater in proportion than any contribution we could make to the general stock. This delusion was entirely dispelled by Mr. Galt who, when advocating the Union, used this language: “I ask the House frankly to look at it as a great measure brought down to relieve Canada from distress and depression.” He went on to say that if the local revenues were inadequate then the people must resort to direct taxation.

I remember when I was studying my Profession in this city, coming into the gallery, and hearing the present Attorney General say: “Nova Scotia came from the hands of the Creator, endowed with greater natural advantages than any territory of equal dimensions on the face of the globe.” I ask you if the development of her resources in the interim has not proved the truth of what he then said. One of the first questions that should have been asked when the measure was under consideration was, whether it was to be advantageous to all the Provinces concerned. What did Sir Richard Graves McDonnell tell the Legislature in the session of 1864? That he was pleased to be able to congratulate them on the unprecedented increase in the revenues of Nova Scotia. The following statement will clearly show the remarkable increase of our customs revenues in ten year’s time: In 1856 this revenue was $571,588; but it had increased to $1,226,199 in ’65. In 1854 our Exports were valued at $4,990,672; but in 1865 they amounted to $8,830,693. As I represent one of the principal, indeed the largest fishing constituency in Nova Scotia, I may mention that the fish exported in 1854 from this Province was valued at $1,960,932, and in 1865 it reached $3,282,016. I have said that there was no necessity for Nova Scotia to enter into the Union in order to promote her prosperity and advancement. When the French fleet visited this port some years ago, one of the officers made a tour of the Province in order that he might see the state of the descendants of the old Acadians, and when he returned to France he wrote a work, in which he asserted that there were no people who had more reason to be happy and contented than those in Nova Scotia, and he added with reference to the taxes, they laid upon them “as lightly as a down cushion.” Compare this state of things with that of the Canadians. Having had a deficit for many years they saw in the revenues of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick a means of overcoming their difficulties, as suggested by Mr. Galt. Accordingly they proceeded in hot haste to Charlottetown, and persuaded the Delegates from the Maritime Provinces, who were charged with the performance of a certain duty, to adjourn to another Province, and there to arrange a scheme which was wholly outside of their instructions. This Province has received from its public men the most contemptuous treatment.

The story of Mr. Watkin has been often referred to, and I must also allude to it for a moment. The man who is the “head and front of all the offending” in Nova Scotia was the one who led the Parliament of England astray on this question. He says he told Mr. Watkin that he had delivered addresses in the different counties on the question, and that he came into power with a large majority who gave the scheme their support. Mr. Watkin evidently sought for correct information. Because Dr. Tupper delivered lectures in Truro, Windsor, and one or two other county towns, were the people of this Province therefore to be considered conversant with the details of the scheme. He must have made the statement he did designedly, in order to have Mr. Wat-

[Page 82]

kin believe that the people had decided in favor of the scheme, because he knew that such was not the case. I would like to know why he did not remain here to finish the work of educating the people up to the blessings of Confederation in the face of a high tariff and the Canadian Stamp Act. It is said if the Fenians come to Nova Scotia, or if there is any threatened invasion, the people must rise in their might; and yet if they are deprived of their rights and privileges as British freemen by those living on their own soil, they must be quiet.

All we required was the privilege of deciding the question for ourselves, and I shall turn the attention of the House to the language used by the gentleman who moved the resolution on which the delegates went to England, and we want nothing more than what he said to show the proper mode of dealing with this question. Mr. Miller said in Temperance Hall: “Let no attempt be made to place the walls of the Provincial Building between this measure and the electors of Nova Scotia. If the advocates of the measure have faith in the soundness of their scheme, let them submit it to the only tribunal competent to pass a judgment upon it, the people at the polls.” That he then took the right view of the question the elections of last September clearly proved. Yet the gentleman who used this language came to the House and in his place moved the resolution on which the delegates went to England, in order to fasten this iniquitous scheme upon us. I would like to know why the course he advised at first ought not to have been followed in 1866? I am ashamed to say in my place in this House that so many public men of Nova Scotia, charged with the interests of this people, proved false to the trust reposed in them in the manner they did. Why, sir, a city wood sawyer, even the man who begs from door to door, “poor pensioner on the bounties of an hour,” may better illustrate the worth and dignity of human nature than the men who betrayed their country, though they have half the letters of the alphabet after their names, and now receive high salaries in the Dominion as the reward of their deception. These men I hold to have been Nova Scotians only in name, and I am happy to see that some of them are out of the country, and if all of them were away the interests of the people would not suffer in consequence. Let me, however, add that I hold that men who have been consistent advocates of Confederation all through are not to be classed with those who came here declaring that they were opposed to the scheme, and afterwards voted in favor of it. The hon. member for Inverness the other day hinted that he hoped to change the opinions of some of the honest men he saw around these benches. I hope he will not be able to do any such thing. I believe every man will maintain his allegiance to his Queen and to the people, and that every one of them at least of the thirty-six will emulate the conduct of that noble Roman sentinel who forsook not his post at the gates of Pompeii, but was found when the ruins of that city were uncovered, standing in his place erect in death, still holding his spear. (Cheers in the gallery which was repressed by the chair.)

Mr. BLANCHARD.—If it were not for the example set by the House itself the galleries would be quiet enough.

Hon. SPEAKER.—Sir, it is not for you but for the chair to attend to the order of this House. You are not yourself inclined to preserve that decorum which is expected from every gentleman, for you very often converse with gentlemen on these benches when others are speaking.

Mr. BLANCHARD.—I may say that never since I have had the honor of a seat in this House have I known a gentleman to be refused permission to interrupt another, and make some explanation. When gentlemen encourage that gallery to make demonstrations to destroy the order of this House they are at liberty to do so, but if you do not check them I will.

Hon. SPEAKER.—When you, sir, assume the duties of the Speaker of this House, and whilst I am here to preside over the members of this body, and reprove them for anything, I must call you to order, and desire that this may never be done again. (Cheers in the gallery.)

Mr. BLANCHARD.—”I see strangers in the gallery.”

The galleries were cleared, and the House at once adjourned until Monday.