Document Information

Date: 1868-02-19
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 99-113.
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 99]

Wednesday, Feby. 19, 1868.

The House met at 3 o’clock, p. m.

[…]

MR. COPELAND’S SPEECH.

Mr. COPELAND said:—Mr. Speaker, with your permission I rise to offer a few remarks upon the great question of Confederation, now before the House. But as the gentlemen around these benches have so fully and ably discussed the question already, I will not at this late period of the debate occupy much of your time.

I have the honor of being one of the representatives of the second most populous county in the Province, and if your take into consideration its vast mineral resources, I believe the first county in the Province, and as representing such a county I do not think I would be doing justice to myself or those who sent me were I to give a silent vote, I desire therefore in a few words to express my hostility to the British North America Act, also to the fraud, deceit and treachery by which it was carried.

I believe, sir, that such an Act as the British North America Act, affecting as it does the interest of the people so materially—such an overturn of their constitution—should have been referred to the people at the polls; and the parties who so systematically prevented the people from passing on it, committed a very grievous injury on the people of this Province, and perpetrated an act which will forever hand their names down to posterity as men who have wantonly trampled upon the rights and liberties of a free people. And I believe there was too much honesty and sense of fair play in the British Parliament to pass such an Act if they had not been deceived by the delegates, and made to believe that the people of Nova Scotia were in favor of it.

But, sir, when an opportunity was at last presented to the people they arose in the majesty of their strength, and have declared in a voice of thunder that they abhor the British North America Act—the fraud by which it was carried, and the treachery of the men who perpetrated the deed.

Nova Scotia is small in extent, but rich in resources; why, sir, just but glance at her fisheries, her vast mineral wealth, her gold, her iron, her coal, her shipping, her mercantile capabilities, and her near proximity to Europe; and I think, sir, that you will agree with me that Nova Scotia is the most important part of North America in proportion to its size.

Sir, I am a Nova Scotian, possessing, I trust, all the feelings of a Briton. I am proud of my native country—proud of the mighty Empire of which we form a part, and loyal to my Queen and Sovereign. But, sir, I will never submit willingly to have my rights and liberties swept away, and handed over to the tender mercies of the Canadians, to be nothing better than “hewers of wood and drawers of water” for them. Sir, I feel that my countrymen possess the same feelings with regard to this matter, that I do myself, and that nothing but force and coercion will cause them to submit to the B. N. A. Act, and that they will embrace the very first opportunity of getting free from it. I shall therefore most heartily give my vote for the resolutions submitted by the Hon. Attorney General, knowing that in doing so, I am not only fulfilling the desires of my own constituents, but expressing the views of the people of the whole Province; and with a firm belief that the British Parliament will, on the facts being made known to them, grant the people of Nova Scotia what they desire, and without which nothing else will satisfy them, that is a repeal of the B. N. A. Act, in so far as it refers to Nova Scotia.

MR. WHITE’S SPEECH.

Mr. WHITE said—So much has been advanced on this question that it is with the greatest embarrassment that I rise to address the House. To give a silent vote on the resolutions, however, would not be congenial to my feelings or consistent with the duty I owe the people of the important county who have honored me with the trust I have undertaken. Not only has a great deal been said on this subject, but much has been so ably said that my embarrassment arises not so much from what I should say as from what I should leave unsaid. Promising not to occupy the time of the House at any length, I will advert to one or two matters which occupy my mind in connection with the history of Confederation. We all know something of the history of Canada, and a glance at that history shows that she has been laboring under serious disadvantages for thirty years past—disadvantages partly entailed by her system of representation,

[Page 100]

which was established with the treaty of peace which followed the rebellion. That treaty would not have been acceded to by Upper Canada unless the representation had been framed according to her wishes, Lower Canada having then the largest population. The result was that equal representation was made the basis of the treaty. This gave rise to nearly all the difficulties which Canada has since had to encounter. Not very long ago we saw a Government formed there which lasted but two or three days, owing to the equal system of representation. This difficulty led to the conception of the present scheme, the basis of which is representation by population. It is true that the Canadian politicians had also an eye to the revenues, but their main object was to remedy the political difficulties which their system of representation entailed. This may have suited Canadian policy, but in common with those who have preceded me in this debate I protest against it as far as Nova Scotia is concerned. I was struck with the argument of the hon. member for Inverness the other day, when, in support of the constitutionality of the measure, he instanced the repeal of the Corn Laws and the Emancipation of the Catholics in England. Every one knows that the members of the British House of Commons received instructions time and again on these questions from their constituents. The Catholic Emancipation Act, it must also be remembered, only extended the privileges of the people; it did not restrict them. It aimed a blow at the prejudices of the age, but not at the constitution itself. It did not transfer to another country the revenues of Great Britain, nor did it extinguish the Lords and Commons, and that instance is therefore not at all analagous. The mode of passing Confederation has been much commented on, and very properly so, for even if the measure were good, the manner in which it was passed would have been reprehensible. So was the conduct of some of its supporters. I will not travel out of my own county to illustrate this, but will refer to an address delivered in 1865 by Mr. Bourinot, my predecessor in this House. After an earnest remonstrance against that measure, he concluded by saying:—

“Now that the people should be told that they were to have nothing to do with deciding so important a question as changing the constitution of the country, but that the House could deal with it irrespective of the wishes of those they represented, was something most preposterous to propound in a country like this, enjoying the principles of Responsible Government—where the people are the fountain of all authority. The Provincial Secretary must have known that the House was elected under our existing constitution, and could not change it without consulting those that elected them. Yet the Provincial Secretary was quite ready to strike down all existing rights and privileges enjoyed by this people, in order that he might march on to Ottawa. But far and wide the spirit of the people asserted itself. Little by little a feeling arose which spread over the length and breadth of this Province, and showed the Government that they must pause in their rash career. In my own county at first much indifference was felt on this question, but as the discussion proceeded a strong feeling of dissatisfaction at the scheme exhibited itself among all classes of the people.”

These were that gentleman’s views in 1865, and I here assert that his constituency approved them, and yet I find that in 1866 he voted for the measure. Had any change occurred in the meantime? I contend that nothing occurred which should have materially altered his views. He delivered a speech in 1867, and by way of explaining his vote said:

“The reasons for my opposition to the Quebec scheme are known to many of my friends, and as I have stated them at large to the house, I need not refer to them again, excepting to say that I support the measure from conviction. My mind was not influenced by any freak of a moment, or by any desire for office. It is well known that I never held office, and that I do not desire any either under the general or local government In the opinion of some gentlemen every man does wrong who does not strictly conform to their views; but I can fully justify the course I have taken. When I came to the session last year there were many conflicting reasons operating in my mind and I was not fully determined as to whether I should support or oppose Union. In the first place I found on reading attentively that the opinions of the most intelligent men in England were favourable to Confederation; then I saw that the organs of the various religious denominations were likewise favorable, and that the proposition had received the support of the leading men of every political creed.—Everywhere evidence was to be found that the wish of the Imperial Government was to see Union consummated; then came the Fenian excitement, and the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty; and, at length, when our own territory was menaced, I felt that the moment had arrived when a true and patriotic lover of his country should decide. I then came to the conclusion that I should support Confederation, in order that we might be prepared to meet the emergencies which were approaching. I gave the proposition my support, however, with the understanding that the Quebec scheme should undergo modification.”

Perhaps I am hardly justified in saying that this was an eye opener to Mr. Bourinot—that the mists cleared away as soon as he discovered that there was room for him in the Senate, but I cannot help saying that he exhibited a total want of that patriotism which he so glibly talked about. Patriot is hardly the word to apply to him. Sir, if this be patriotism, our lexicographers should revise their works and find some term or combination of words better fitted to convey to the mind—love of country, and devotion to our country’s interests. Sir, I can scarcely trust myself to dwell upon the conduct of those who have been instrumental in consummating this measure of Confederation. Suffice it that these records (Debates of House of Assembly, 1864 to 1867) abound with the tergiversations of those of whom the people of this country did hope better things.

I turn now from all the inconsistencies which that record illustrates to a subject which has not been touched on by those who preceded me. I refer to the address to Genl. Williams, which was got up for the purpose of whitewashing some individuals. I was much struck with the view taken of that address by some of the Confederate organs; it was taken not merely as an expression of loyalty to the Queen through the Governor, but as announcing to the English people that the people of Nova Scotia were in favor of Confederation, and a clause to carry out that view was inserted in it. When we reflect upon the means by which that address obtained its signatures, it loses its effect, and should do so. When introduced to my county, it was sneakingly taken around, and people

[Page 101]

were asked to sign it hurriedly, and did so, being told that it was merely an address of loyalty to the Queen, and had no political significance. Many who signed it were astonished to find afterwards that it contained a clause designed to make Confederation appear popular. If in other counties that address was signed as it was in Cape Breton, I deny that it was any compliment to General Williams. Its being signed in that county was not, I must repeat, intended as an expression of agreement with the policy of those who carried Confederation. In conclusion, I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have an abiding faith in the generosity of the British Parliament, and believe that, without doubt, this repeal will be granted. The attention of the British people has been so much turned, within a year or two, to the condition of Ireland, that the Imperial Government will hesitate, I feel certain, before refusing an application like this. I, for one, am content to await the result. My remarks, I fear sir, have been somewhat desultory and void of that eloquence which characterised a debate on a similar subject in England some years ago; but, sir, however weak I may be in reprobating this thing and its promoters, my weakness may be to some extent compensated for, by my sincerity in the cause of Repeal.

MR. BLANCHARD’S SPEECH.

Mr. BLANCHARD said:—It was understood, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon should be devoted to giving me an opportunity to review the numerous speeches made on the subject under debate, and I feel that it never has been, and I trust it never will be again, the lot of any man in Nova Scotia to be placed in my position. However indifferently I may be able to discharge the duties which devolve upon me, and however small may be the abilities which I can bring to bear, yet I feel that it is well that there is some little difference of sentiment here. If it were otherwise the employment of the House would be short, and little or no interest would centre in this debate. I find myself now called upon to reply to about twenty-nine speeches, delivered by gentlemen on the government side of the House. It was said last evening that some of those gentlemen should have the reply, because I might take the whole twenty-nine and lacerate them, but I have no idea of doing anything of the kind. On the contrary, I will say that such an array of eloquence and talent as has delighted the House for more than a week never occurred in a Provincial legislature before. We have seen coming to the fore and delivering lengthy addresses men who, one would have supposed, would hardly have occupied as much time as the last speaker. Talk of lawyers, sir, they cannot compare with some of the farmers and merchants who have been addressing us. Some gentlemen who, before the last election, had hardly ever made a speech except in a village debating club, have delighted the House for two mortal hours at a stretch, with language, it is true, that is somewhat unusual, but with power! eloquence!! and wisdom!!! Such as I must congratulate the country on possessing.

Talk of the talent of the House being lessened since the Union Act came into force! Why if we measure the talent of hon. gentlemen by the number of their words, and their ability by the force of their language, nothing to be compared with this debate has ever occurred before. I sat here in the days when we thought we had intellectual giants among us—when Mr. Johnston on the one side led an array of talent that was of no ordinary character, and when Mr. Howe and Mr. Young, on the other side, were sustained by a fair share of talent and ability, but all the debates of those days were as nothing when compared with these twenty-nine speeches all in a row, suggesting to the memory the nursery rhyme about some other things in a row. I intend to go into the subject with good temper, because whenever I have, on other occasions, ventured to indulge in a little retort, by way of satire, on gentlemen who had attacked me, I got a dressing such as no ordinary man would submit to, but I promise two or three gentlemen that before I am done I will return the compliment. If I should omit to refer particularly to any gentleman, I trust he will pardon, and take to himself the remarks I make to his friends.

In the first place, however, I wish to take a broad view of some of the features of the debate. We had a good deal of constitutional argument, and I regret that when I closed my first speech the Attorney General was not allowed then and there, as he wished to do, to reply to my remarks upon that head, for that would have given me an opportunity of commenting upon his observations. I feel that it will be manifest that in the course of his argument he either misrepresented the issues of the question or he was not aware of the facts. We were told that this country had a charter—an inviolate charter, but I ask the Attorney General to meet the argument which I advanced: that if such a charter were given by George II. it has been violated over and over again until there is not a ray of it left—violated in every conceivable manner—torn into ribbons ten thousand times. I will give book and page in proof of my assertion: in Murdoch’s History, vol. 2 page 332, it is recorded that by proclamation George III., with the advice of his Privy Council, annexed the Islands of Prince Edward and Cape Breton to Nova Scotia. Again we find the Governor and Council of this Province altering the representation in the legislature and the franchise. What became of the immaculate charter then? In 1769 Prince Edward Island was made a separate Province by the act of the King and Council—the same power separating the Island which had annexed. But going down to 1784, what do we find the condition of the country to have been? Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton were one country, under one Government and Legislature. In 1784 New Brunswick was cut off from Nova Scotia by the Act of the Crown. In 1784 Cape Breton also was made separate; in 1820 that Island was restored to this Province. When I addressed the House before, I was under the impression that Cape Breton was annexed by Act of Parliament, but on careful examination I find I was mistaken,

[Page 102]

for the union was effected by order of the King and Council; that, however, does not affect the argument. Where, then, was the charter that could not be broken? It was maintained by the Attorney General that the King and Council could not touch the charter—that it was irrevocable and must forever remain so; and yet in 1820 the King and Council annexed Cape Breton by their own act. Let any gentleman refer to the Journals of 1844, and he will find there that a special session of this House took place in the month of July, when the whole matter of the annexation of the Island was brought up by orders of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who wished delegates to be sent home to meet the representatives of Cape Breton when they went before the Privy Council. A petition had been sent to England from 2000 persons asking for repeal, and urging the unconstitutionality of the decree on the same grounds as those taken in this debate. If there is any strength in the argument now, how much greater ought its force to have been then, when the system of Government was swept away without the voice of the people or their representatives being heard. There was no House of Assembly or Legislature that could be appealed to. We have heard a good deal about the strong feeling pervading the country now, but I have been often told by men who were well acquainted with the state of the Island in 1820 that the feeling then was infinitely stronger. £1000 sterling was subscribed by a small population to send home delegates and engage counsel in England. The Privy Council then desired this Legislature to send an agent before them—not to discuss the propriety or judiciousness of annexing Cape Breton to Nova Scotia, because that branch of the argument was expressly excluded, but to discuss the constitutionality of the Act. Our Legislature declined to send agents, yet the question was elaborately discussed before that tribunal, in whose integrity the public had the most implicit faith, and within whose doors the breath of suspicion never entered. Did the Privy Council decide that the union was unconstitutional, and repeal their decree? No; but they sent back something like this message to the people of Cape Breton: “you have been united by the Act of the King and Council, and united you must remain.” United they have remained fortunately for themselves, and it did take many years for the great feeling about repeal to dwindle out of existence.

Having said this much in reference to the charter, and having, as I think, shown that the acts of the King and Council have been universally recognized as controlling our affairs and annexing separate Legislatures, I think I have made a point which cannot easily be overcome. I will admit the truth of the proposition, that as the country progresses and the Government becomes more liberal and democratic, the Legislature should be consulted on subjects of this kind, but I cannot understand the allusions which some gentlemen have made to despatches which state that the Parliaments of the Provinces should be consulted. Those despatches have been spoken of, as though they contemplated an appeal to the people. As I said before it is a doctrine unknown to the British constitution that we must go beyond the representatives of the people and go to the people themselves for the declaration of their will. However desirable such a principle may be it is not British, it is American in its inception and history; it never formed a part of our constitution, and I trust it never will. I come now to refer to the observations made by various members in this debate, and I must say, with all due respect for those who constitute this House, that if they could but divest their minds of the heat and prejudice which operate on them, they would see the impropriety of much that has been said in this debate. We have had a good many hard words used in nearly all the speeches from that of the hon. member for Londonderry down to that of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Copeland) who spoke this afternoon. I have known the latter since I was a child, I am well aware that a more upright man Nova Scotia does not contain, and when I heard him in his quiet voice use the words “fraud, deceit, and treachery,” I felt that he had not measured his language. So stereotyped have those phrases become, that at last it seems impossible to discuss this question without using them. I will endeavor not to retaliate for the strong language that has been used, but I cannot help saying that such expressions are seldom employed in reference to anybody present or absent, and I do feel that there are some who would hardly have ventured to use such language if those to whom they applied it were here. To whom did they apply those words? I have under my hand a speech and pamphlet by a man, who, above all others, earned and retained the respect of the Conservative party; and I ask the Conservatives of this House—the men who from childhood have been taught to look up to James W. Johnston, if they are prepared to apply the terms “traitor” and “treachery” to him? If that old gentleman were here, even at his time of life, I would like to see the man who would get up and talk about fraud, deceit and treachery, and apply the terms to him. I was long opposed to that hon. gentleman. I know how to admire talent and patriotism even in an opponent. I should like to see the Attorney General tell him that he was a traitor. As long ago as 1854 Mr. Johnston made one of the finest speeches ever delivered on the floors of Parliament, and not content with that, after the publication of the Quebec scheme, when asked to give that speech for general publication, he endorsed every word he had ever uttered on the subject.

I cannot forbear reading to the House one or two sentences containing so much eloquence and pregnant with so much instruction, that I hope, before we hear the words which I referred to again repeated, gentlemen will reflect on whom they are casting aspersions. In Cape Breton, when a Highlander curses and swears he is said to use “bad English.” We have had a good deal of “bad English” in this discussion, but as far as I am concerned this violent language passes by me as the idle wind, which I regard not.

[Page 103]

In reference to Judge Johnston’s opinions I will read first, not his utterances in 1854, but in 1865. He said on the one hand:—

“Union under one government, giving to British subjects, in their confederate and growing strength, a nationality worthy of their origin, and a theatre of action such as national expansion demands; where, acknowledging the sovereignty, maintaining the institutions, cultivating and perpetuating the principles of the parent State, and putting forth the energies of freemen, they and their descendants may, under a gracious Providence, have the opportunity of rising to degrees of political influence, material prosperity, intellectual and literary attainments, religious, educational and moral progress, and refinement of taste and manners, which cannot be reached in small and contracted communities.”

On the other hand is:—

“The perpetuation of the present isolated condition of the Province,—and rich as she is in material benefits, and prosperous within the limits which small communities may attain, yet few in numbers, weak in strength, unequal to the development of her own resources, unable to furnish to her sons professional education, or to retain at home her enterprising youth, she has little prospect for the future beyond a dwarfed existence and ultimate absorption into the neighboring Republic.

“One of these must be chosen—the other rejected. There is no other alternative. My sentiments, formed and publicly advocated through a quarter of a century, leave me no room for deliberation now. To an old man, individually, any decision is of small moment; but as a member of the community, in the exercise of my best judgment on a question of vital interest to all of us and those who come after, I dare not deny a national existence, with its privileges and duties, to my descendants and my countrymen.

“I therefore accept Confederation as a great benefit, whatever my tendencies in favor of Legislative Union, and though they were greater and more fixed than they are.”

Sir, is that the language of a discontented politician? Is it the language of an ambitious man who wanted to get into a larger arena? No, but it is the language of a man of a ripe old age, removed beyond all political relations, and ornamenting the Judiciary in a very high degree. Does it become some men whom I could name to talk about traitors and treachery, and to stigmatize so strongly as they have done the friends of Union, and among them a man like that?

Now, let us consider when this discussion of Union commenced. Its origin was not in 1863 or 1864, or in the days when Mr. Howe brought it forward, but away back in 1814, long before Cape Breton was annexed,—and we then find that the late Chief Justice Sewell and the Duke of Kent took a decided interest in the question. From then until now the great minds of the country directed their attention to it. I have under my hand a letter on the subject, written by the Duke of Kent in which he speaks strongly in favor of the project. But passing over many beautiful and eloquent passages in the speech delivered by Mr. Johnston in 1854, let me read to you his concluding remarks. He said:—

“I cannot conclude, Mr. Chairman, without acknowledging how far short I feel I have fallen of the capacity of the subject—I will not say of its requirements, for the measure I have advocated needs little of argument or of eloquence. The principle on which it rests is so simple—so truthful—so practical—so acknowledged—that argument and eloquence seem superfluous.

“UNION IS STRENGTH—reason, philosophy and experience declare, illustrate and confirm the truth. Religion and civilization demand its aid.

“It upholds the sovereignty which God has given to man over creation, and is the basis on which rests all the agencies for fulfilling the Creator’s designs for the amelioration of our race. Supported on this principle the question seems no longer open to debate, so soon as the practicability of Union is affirmed. And yet the subject affords ample scope for reasoning the most rigid and eloquence the most exciting. Hence at one moment the mind is embarrassed to find rabid objections to oppose—at another, oppressed by emotions difficult to utter.

“I trust and believe my deficiencies will be lost in the more perfect and able exposition the subject will receive from those around me, and that, graced by the aids of reasoning and eloquence, it will be placed in the light it ought to occupy before this Province, our sister Colonies, and the Empire.

“I offer no apology—or, if any be required, my interest as a Colonist, my duty as a citizen, my country’s welfare and the well-being of our posterity, must plead my excuse for inviting this discussion. Called, in the Providence of God, to take part in the councils of my country, I have now fulfilled a duty I should have been ill satisfied to have left undone when my public career shall terminate.”

This quotation, let it be remembered, is from one who was looked up to with reverence and respect as a gentleman of the highest personal character, and when I heard the words “traitor and treachery” applied to him by men who, in comparison with him, are the merest pigmies, I feel inclined to advise gentlemen to go and look at Judge Johnston’s grey hairs, and when they think of him as a politician of forty years standing, the Conservatives of the House at least should be ashamed of the injustice which they have done him.

Hon. PROV. SECY.—Mr. Johnston did not vote for the measure.

Mr. BLANCHARD continued:—No he did not vote for it, but look at his language after the legislature had adopted it, both in the letter which I have quoted, and in his address to the Grand Jury at Truro and Amherst last summer. I think that after this some gentlemen would wish their language unsaid. But am I done when I have spoken of Mr. Johnston? No sir, many are the great names which I could cite as advocates of Union. I will not go into a discussion of Mr. Howe’s inconsistency, except to say a few words. I will not say that Mr. Howe was the father of Union, because he was not. Mr. Johnston was the originator of the question here; but I am going to speak of one circumstance in connection with Mr. Howe, and to quote one sentence from a speech of his, and I will be content with that, because, as far as Mr. Howe is concerned, the subject has become hackneyed and tasteless. In 1857, after losing the control of the government, Mr. Howe said in reference to the Union of the Colonies: “If there was one question unsettled when I left the administration, in the discussion of which I desired to mingle, it was that (Union of the Colonies). When the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston) moved his resolution in 1854, I lent him all the aid in my power, and if it were debated again gladly would I assist him.” Now, sir, I ask the House, and especially the Liberals who have been accustomed to look up to Mr. Howe, if it becomes them to talk about traitors and treason when Mr. Howe said that this was almost the only question which he had been unable to settle. Now I ask some of these gentlemen, and some

[Page 104]

of the people outside, who have been talking brazenly about traitors, to consider Mr. Howe’s definition of that word. He says: “I hold that the Queen’s commission runs throughout this entire realm, that every constitutional mandate of Her Majesty her loyal subjects are bound to obey, and that he who attempts to thwart or oppose the policy of the Imperial Government is a disaffected and disloyal subject.” Nor am I done when I show the House that the Equity Judge and Mr. Howe are men to whom the terms that have been used were applied? Standing as I do, almost alone, when I hear gentlemen talking as if I had forgotten the rights of the people, I am tempted to turn back and tell them who must at the same time have forgotten those rights. Let gentlemen consider whether they are prepared to apply these epithets to the Judges of this country presiding over the Supreme Court. If they are not they should remember that they have done so in applying them to others. If, sir, I stood alone in the country, as I stand almost alone here, I would still, I think, have enough manly feeling not to be put down, but to induce me to give expression to the sentiments which animate my breast. That, however, is not the case. The opprobrious terms which have been applied to the advocates of the measure, are not applied to me alone, but to men who are greatly my superiors: to the Judges, to Mr. Howe, to the men who preside over the various churches of the Province, to the overwhelming majority of the profession with which I am connected, to men of every class in the country who ought to know, as well as the farmers we have heard so much of, what is for the good of the country.

There are one or two questions of which I wish to speak before going into a reply of the various gentlemen who have addressed this House. We have had recently placed before the country a comparative statement of the amounts of duties received under the preceding and existing tariff by a gentleman of no ordinary ability. When some gentlemen get up and talk flippantly about the figures, as if the officer who published the statement knew nothing about them, I would ask them to pause. One gentleman said that Mr. Johnson had made a mistake in every entry, but he did not stay to reflect—perhaps he did not know, that in April 1866 the duties were largely altered. We had one set of duties to April and another to September, and which set was Mr. Johnson to take? If he took the old duties it would not be a fair statement at all, for his object was to show how much more would be collected under the Dominion tariff in 1867 than would have been collected under the tariff as it was on the 1st July, 1867. That is the answer to the array of figures presented by the hon. member for Kings. Even another gentleman, who took the trouble to publish a full statement in the paper this morning, has not ventured to adopt this view of the subject, but I would ask whether it was fair, under the circumstances, for the Provincial Secretary to bring down what is the same statement to all intents and purposes, and to publish it only a few hours before I was called upon to reply? Why did he not take the hon. member for Kings and cram him for the task? The statement of the latter gentleman was altogether fallacious, inasmuch as he took the duties preceding April, while Mr. Johnson took the subsequent tariff. Again, that gentleman and those who have addressed the public through the newspapers, have entirely ignored one branch of the subject. Mr. Johnson calculated that there would be a change in the trade of the country in consequence of a large amount of goods imported from Canada free. Mr. Jones and Mr. Dickie entirely ignored this fact. Let me turn attention to some of the articles to which this remark applies. Mr. Johnson has deducted $6000 for arms and ammunition, and why? Because there is a manufactory in Canada where they can be obtained as cheaply as they can be imported. Bacon and hams are also omitted, because Canada will give us as large and cheap a supply as can be obtained from the United States. So as to other articles of produce. Why, I ask, was this view of the case ignored? Why is it that no gentleman has considered the large quantity of dry goods hitherto paying duty, but which will now come in free? Among those articles:—felt and felt hat bodies, materials for hoop skirts, machine silk twist, prunella, silk twist for hats, boots and shoes, candle wick, straw plaits, Tuscan grass and fancy, &c. All these articles paid ten per cent before, and are free now, and yet these gentlemen in their calculations insert thousands of dollars which should have been omitted. They have put down a large sum for India rubber manufactures, but who does not know that Canada can supply them as cheap, and indeed cheaper, than they can be had from abroad.

One word about printing paper, about the taxation of which a great deal of complaint has been made. I have taken the trouble to enquire about that matter, and what is the fact? For the last five or six years printing paper has been so high that it could not be imported from the United States, and the publishers have been obliged to import from Great Britain. But the price has now become so high there that a mineral substance has been used for adulteration, which has been found most injurious to the type. At this moment I undertake to say on good authority that an article infinitely superior can be got from Canada, free of duty, more cheaply than paper can be got from Great Britain, and at this moment there is an agent of one establishment here endeavoring to negotiate for a supply. I will not, however, dwell on this subject by going over the various articles to which similar remarks apply. I have made no calculation and do not intend to make one, but I desire the country to look at the various statements put forth, and to give them a fair examination. There are a hundred men in the Province more competent to examine this matter than any of us, and the truth can be easily arrived at if the change of importation is borne in mind. Passing to another topic, it has been declared in the amendment which I submitted, that in the present condition of this country it would have been necessary to increase the taxes to

[Page 105]

discharge the public services without Confederation, and I now ask members to look at that matter. I will not make an elaborate calculation, but I ask the House to consider the facts set out in the resolution: that while our debt two or three years ago was but four or five millions, it now amounts to eight and a half millions, and, according to some, nine millions. If it be a fact that we were about having to provide interest on our additional debt of so large an amount, I ask where was the money to come from? $240,000 was the smallest sum which must have been provided annually after the 1st of July for that purpose. Will any man tell us that we were able to take that sum from our annual revenue, and still provide as we had been doing for our roads and bridges and other services? It was impossible. “But,” says the hon. member for Kings, “we had been growing at such a rate for the last ten years that if our progress were the same we could have met these liabilities.” It is easy to look back and easy to prophesy, but if he had looked more carefully and gone to the proper authorities he would have found the fact standing out patent that the revenues of last year down to the present time were $130,000 less than at the corresponding period of the previous year. This sum, added to the amount of interest which I stated, makes $370,000 to be provided for. And yet we are told that before Confederation Nova Scotia was a happy country, and could carry on her public works without increasing the taxation. I could not help feeling amused at hearing one gentleman talk about Nova Scotia being economical, and keeping within her income. When we doubled our debt within five or six years, surely we should not talk about keeping within our income. I undertake to say at any rate that our debt is double what it was eight years ago, and yet it is said that Canada is a most extravagant country, while Nova Scotia is a tight little place that manages its affairs differently. When I said $130,000 was the deficiency, I should have given the exact figures which are $127,373.27 to 1st September last.

Before going into a reply to the speeches of the hon. member let me ask one or two questions. The resolutions laid on the table state boldly that our revenues are in such a condition that we are unable to meet the public requirements. Yet what did we hear stated the other day? That the accounts were in such a state of confusion that the Government, acknowledging themselves incompetent for the task of arranging them, were obliged to call in the assistance of three gentlemen from outside. Those accountants were put to work three or four months ago, and I ask why it is that, though the House has been three weeks in session, although the country has been looking for alarming disclosures about peculations on the part of the late Government, at this moment we are still without the result of their investigations. I am unable to account for it; perhaps the Government can,—but these Commissioners should at least have given a preliminary report. A committee of this House was appointed some time ago to investigate the public accounts, but they have not held one meeting up to this hour. If the statements made by the Government be true, why has not the proof been laid before us either by the report of the accountants or the report of our own committee? I can imagine a reason—it may be that when the report comes up it will be found that we have money enough and to spare. If this be not the case why are delegates to be sent home to say to the British Government that this country is not in a condition to carry on its public works at a time when we have no report from the Commissioners or from the Committee of this House? If the statement be true, it is within the power of the Government to prove it. If the accountants have not been able to exercise due diligence in their work who has been hindering them? Is the Government doing so? Have these gentlemen been supplied with the information necessary to the completion of the work? No, sir; to my knowledge information has not been applied for at the very quarters where it could be derived, and therefore the Government are not in a position to say what is the condition of our finances. When they put into the mouths of members, for the purpose of sending it to England, the statement that we are not able to carry on the public affairs, why did they not lay the proof on the table?

I come now to my reply to hon. members, and I find that the first gentleman who favored me with his notice was my hon. friend from Londonderry, who gave us his views of the constitutional law bearing on the subject. This is not the first occasion on which I have heard of the hon. member’s constitutional law; he seemed to think once upon a time that no one but himself was a match for Mr. Johnston—no one would so readily approach the lion in his den, and catch him by the beard, as he. He told us once that he could make a better collection of Revised Statutes in a week than all the rest of us put together. How often have we listened in times gone by to the constitutional law which I, “the member for Colchester,” proclaimed to the country. He used to say, in substance, “do not take your law from Johnston or Young; I, the great man from Colchester, will tell you what the law is, and let no one dare dispute it.”

In that strain he used to address the House, and now, coming down from greater game, he has turned his artillery upon me, and has told the people that I knew nothing about constitutional law, and that I had a great deal of audacity to talk of it in his presence. He asks us to consider the precedents set in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, where an appeal was made to the electors. I did not say that there was to be no appeal to the people when the government could not carry its measures through the legislature, no man had ever heard of a dissolution being required. That was the state of affairs in New Brunswick when the question was mooted; the government disagreed on the subject, and there was no alternative but to appeal to the people in order to settle the question. But was there an appeal on this question in Prince Edward Island? Not at all; they had their election there at

[Page 106]

the usual time, and so with Newfoundland. The hon. gentleman also complained that in speaking of some one who had asked the question “what then?” I was trying to prevent Nova Scotians from asking questions. Not at all; but on the contrary I wished him and every Nova Scotian to ask himself and his neighbors, and the leaders of this movement, “what then?” I ask that an answer to that question be given to me as a Nova Scotian, and to every man whom it interests in the country: If repeal is applied for, and refused, what then? I will not repeat what I heard an ex-member of this Legislature say in the lobby of the House this forenoon. If his sentiments were uttered within the purviews of London, he would be imprisoned within half an hour; but when gentlemen in private make such assertions, why not state their answer to the question boldly? I want the hon. member for Colchester to ask himself and his leaders “if repeal be refused, what then?” The hon. gentleman himself undertook to answer it, but with all the skill of a practical lawyer, he went round and round it without coming to the point. He says I may ask myself “what then?” when I think of facing the electors of Inverness. I have faced them three times already, with what result the House knows; but I will never forget the time when the hon. member for Colchester was with us before, and when, at the close of the last session of that House, some of us went down to bid each other good-bye, and after four years hard fighting, the question was asked “who will come back?” They thought there was no hope for me—never dreamed of seeing my face again; but we all thought that there could be no doubt about the return of that hon. gentleman with flying colours. How could any constituency resist that great constitutional lawyer? I did come back, however, and I ask where was he? Left at home. I therefore tell the hon. member, when he asks me how I shall face the electors of Inverness, that he had better look after Colchester. When my constituents do not want me, they will bid me good-bye, and dispense with my services. The hon. member also made some remark to the effect that any society of chimney sweeps would kick from their company the men who voted for Confederation.

Mr. MORRISON.—Hear hear.

Mr. BLANCHARD continued:—It would be more becoming to the hon. member to say shame, shame, for such language was hardly suitable to the dignity of the House and to his own position. He also spoke of some people speaking of themselves as the almighty “we,” but it was the almighty “I” with him. Things went wrong in Canada, he told us, because “there was no Tom Morrison there.” He said further that Nova Scotia would never be loyal to Canada, and, in imitation of a celebrated orator, exclaimed “never! never! never!” I thought that that passage would have taken the House by storm, and that the country when it heard it would burst out in wild enthusiasm. Then he said that Mr. McGee was an “extirpated” rebel,—that surprised me a good deal for I thought that Mr. McGee had still an existence. I would like to speak with respect of every man, but when members talk in that strain of Mr. McGee they should remember who he is and who they are. Where did I see that statesman within the last few years? On the platform of Temperance Hall, which was crowded with one of the finest audiences that it ever held, and there Mr. McGee kept the whole attention of that audience enchained for two hours with eloquence such as is rarely heard on a platform. Whom did I there see delighting to do him honor? The Hon. Joseph Howe, who said at the close of the lecture to the orator of the evening, “go on, I am with you;” and Mr. Johnston and Dr. Tupper joined in these expressions of honor and encouragement. When we hear a man like that—the first orator in British America—spoken of as an expatriated rebel, it is enough to make one’s blood boil. The hon. member for Colchester concluded his speech rather strangely; he said “if I had ten thousand voices I would shout repeal! repeal! repeal!” That was his peroration, and a magnificent one it was. I should like to ask the members who are in the habit of reading their bibles to recall to their minds the way in which Joshua directed that the walls of Jericho were to be knocked down: he directed the Israelites to take ram’s horns and make trumpets of them, to surround the city, and blow with all their might. Then the people were to shout with all their voices, and the walls were to fall down flat. I would advise the Government to follow that example: to send the hon. member home to England as a delegate, and if the British Government should refuse repeal, to station him in front of the Colonial Secretary’s Office to shout. If the walls do not fall as he shouts I shall be very much surprised. I admire the voice of the hon. gentleman; I only wish that heaven had given me such a one, and I trust that the Government will not forget their constitutional lawyer when they come to appoint the delegates. Perhaps it may be unnecessary for them to take my advice,—the walls of Jericho may be down now, for I should not be surprised to hear that the hon. gentleman’s shout had reached all the way across the Atlantic. I speak thus of that gentleman with perfect good nature, hoping that when next he addresses us he will give me as good a text.

Sometime after him we had the hon. member for Halifax, Mr. Northup, who made a short speech. Some allowance is, of course, to be made for a young member unaccustomed to debate, but when I heard that gentleman’s impassioned tones and language on the subject of Confederation, and his not very creditable allusions to the Hon. Mr. Mitchell and others, I thought “well, is it possible, that we have never heard of his being a Confederate?” It has been said that once on a time he sustained and supported the men who were carrying the scheme;—that may not be true, but he was certainly recorded as one of the most emphatic supporters of Union. Something wonderful must have occurred to change his opinions. He told us of what his customers said, and of what some one from New Brunswick said respecting the feeling there. I believe, from conversations I have had with parties from that Province that those rumors are worth

[Page 107]

about as much as some that we have had circulated here. It was said, we know, that hundreds of men of the first standing had forsaken us and joined the Anti-Confederate cause in Halifax, and yet we know that not a man of good position has left the ranks of the party. I assert that most emphatically, and should like to see proof to the contrary. I come next to the speech of the hon. member for Queen’s, Mr. Smith, and of him I can say that he has not provoked retaliation by insinuations of motives, or by the use of violent language,—he will excuse me, however, if I say to him that I think the principles of constitutional law are utterly at variance with those he laid down. He spoke of the charter of George II., adorting the idea that that charter is inviolate and immaculate. I am old enough to recollect when Responsible Government was introduced—when the twelve gentlemen who sat in the Council exercising executive and legislative functions were, by an Act approved of in England, required to vacate their seats, and what was the argument then? Mr. Cogswell raised the cry of “the charter, the charter!” But the Parliament and Government of England declined to say that the charter restrained the Legislature from passing such an Act. That was the great argument, however, then,—the Councillors said: “The King of Great Britain has by his charter appointed us, and no Act of your Parliament can touch us.” That was the very same doctrine that we heard from the Attorney General the other day.

Hon. ATTY. GENERAL—The Councillors held office at will.

Mr. BLANCHARD continued:—That makes no difference,—they were appointed by charter, and did their objections avail them? No, they were swept off, the question of that charter was disposed of pretty quickly, and a Legislative Council was appointed in their place. But, says Mr. Smith, “here is an answer to all your black letter laws,—here is a confirmation by the Privy Council of the Queen’s right to grant the mines and minerals of the Province.” Who denied the right? True, for a time there was a doubt about the matter, but the question was at length decided. Who denies that the Sovereign could grant the unoccupied lands of this Province, but all this does not affect the question of the charter in the smallest degree. The hon. gentleman told us that Catholic Emancipation did not pass against the will of the people. It is the first time that I have heard that assertion,—will anybody tell me that if the voice of the people of England had been taken on the question there would not have been an overwhelming majority to say “no”? It is to the everlasting credit of some of the best Protestants of England that they carried the measure against the prejudices of the majority of the people, and obliged the people to submit. Let me here contradict the assertion made by some one that this question and that of the Irish Union was referred to the people. The people of Ireland were opposed to the Union, but the Union was effected through the will of the Legislature.

We have been told that Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have not been coerced into the Union? Why is that? Because their Legislatures—the only true exponents of the wishes of the people—the only constitutional and regular channel through which their wishes can be made known, did not agree to the scheme. With reference to the Legislative power which Great Britain possesses over her Colonies, let me read from Blackstone, vol. 1, page 101:—

“When the sovereign Legislature sees it necessary to extend its care to any of its subordinate dominions, and mentions them expressly by name, or includes them under general words, there can be no doubt but then they are bound by its laws.”

That is the general doctrine, and as regards the prevailing practice, do we not, day after day, submit to laws passed just in the same way as that which united the Provinces? Whenever Parliament chooses to pass such an act the people must submit, and there can be no appeal. Let this House and the country bear in mind the great distinction between the British and the American rule on this subject. In the Republic, if any one is dissatisfied with a law which has been passed, he can bring it before the Judges of the Supreme Court, and if it be unconstitutional the Judges will not enforce it. Have we any such rule under the British Constitution? No, the Judges of England are as much bound as the meanest subject in the realm by any law that Parliament may pass. Let me here read from Kent, a most celebrated writer on American law and the constitution of the Union. In vol. 1, page 504, he thus says:—

“A case in Pennsylvania has been recently decided involving an important political principle—the Court held that a statute authorizing the citizens of certain Counties to decide by ballot whether the sale of spirituous liquors should be continued in said Counties, was unconstitutional, as being a delegation of Legislative power not permitted by the Constitution, and contrary to the theory of Government. So in New York, an act establishing Free Schools, which had been submitted by the Legislature to the popular vote, was declared to be not a law.”

Now we have a law exactly like that in Nova Scotia, at this moment: that if any polling district should, by a majority of its voters, declare that they do not desire licenses to be granted, the licenses cannot be issued, and yet such an enactment in the United States has been pronounced unconstitutional. That is the distinction between this country and the United States. There is with us no power that can interfere with or dispute the authority of the law as declared by Parliament. The reverse is the case with the United States, and yet some gentlemen seem to desire connection with that country. We know that a great cry has been raised about the members who sat here two years ago, having forgotten their obligations to their constituents. Now upon that point let me read another extract from Blackstone, page 159:—

“The system of members being bound to obey their constituents is spoken of by De Tocqueville as one that would, in the end, render all the guarantees of representative Government useless and vain.”

Upon the same point Smyth, in his lecture on the French Revolution, said:—

“How absurd to have a question decided by the constituents at one end of a country, and afterwards

[Page 108]

debated at the other. Of what use are reasoning and eloquence addressed to those who, in the first place, have to lay their instructions on the table.”

I refer to these points in view of the condition of things two years ago, and to shew that the legislature of that day was bound to pass such measures as its members believed right, without strict regard to the views of the constituencies. Listen to what Burke said upon that question while addressing his constituents at Bristol. He said:—

“I do not obey your instructions! No; I conformed to the instructions of truth and nature, and maintained your interest against your opinions with a constancy that became me. A representative worthy of you ought to be a person of stability. I am to look to your opinions indeed; but to such opinions as you and I must have five years hence. I was not to look to the flash of the day. I knew that you choose me, in my place, along with others to be a pillar of the state, and not a weather-cock on the top of the edifice exalted for my levity and adversability, and of no use but to indicate the shiftings of every fashionable gale.”

In view of these doctrines, so well established, I ask whether it was becoming to style the men who voted for Confederation, two years ago, “traitors,” because they went, it may be, against the wishes of their constituents? I will come now to another branch of the argument. The hon. member for Queens referred to the large petitions got up, at the instance of Dr. Tupper, for the dissolution of Parliament, and he quoted that gentleman’s remarks to shew that the Governor was bound to dissolve the House when a majority of the people showed themselves hostile to its measures. But the hon. member forgot the answer that was given to that request, and I give that answer more especially for the benefit of the liberal members of the House, because it came from the man whom they appear willing to bow down and worship. Mr. Howe, in leading the government of that day, defied Dr. Tupper, and said that the legislature was not to be influenced by every breath of popular opinion, and that for its full term the legislature would continue to govern the country in the way it thought proper—not as the delegates, but as the representatives of the people. From a Minute of Council, dated 29th July, 1861, I take this extract:—

“Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Campbell are the best judges of the soundness of their own views and the propriety of their conduct. They are not delegates but members of Parliament, and from the moment of their election they were bound to represent, not only Digby or Argyle, but the whole Province, whose great interests were committed to their care. This doctrine laid down by Mr. Burke at Bristol in 1774 has never been questioned in the Imperial Parliament. And Mr. Horsman, member for Stroud, though recently called on by his constituents to resign, has asserted his rights, and illustrating this sound British doctrine, positively refused. If members were to resign whenever for a moment they displeased their constituents, the calls would be frequent—personal independence would be rare, and questions would be discussed by requisitions rather than by fair deliberation and manly debates. If Parliament were to be dissolved whenever a gentleman changed sides, or a discontented constituency petitioned, free institutions would become an endless distraction, and no man would ever dare to deliberate or run the risk of being convinced.”

These are the doctrines of Joseph Howe, put upon the Minutes of Council, and here again is a statement of his views on the 20th April of the same year:—

“With regard to the members of Digby and Argyle, it is the undoubted principle of the British Constitution that a member once returned by a constituency has to consider what he believes to be the interests of the whole country and not the wishes of a simple constituency. He is elected a representative and not a delegate, and the constituency have given up to him for the limited period fixed by law for the duration of the Parliament the power which they possessed.”

We have heard announced the doctrine that members are bound to be guided by the wishes of their constituents, and in no case to depart from the views of the people, but I leave this point with the comments which I have already made. In passing from the speech of the hon. member for Queens, I must thank him for the kindness with which he treated me and my colleague. I wish I could congratulate all the members for having evinced so generous and candid a spirit. When I addressed the House previously, I am free to confess that I was to some extent blameable for the warmth I exhibited, but I held out the olive branch, and said that I regretted some of the language which I had applied, and that I had used that language only because I had been provoked beyond endurance. I said I hoped that in future we would be able to conduct our debates with good temper and moderation, but have I been met in the same spirit? Sir, there never was a man who stood on those floors and had so much contumely and heaped upon him as have been heaped upon me by two or three members, and before I am done, if Providence give me the power, I will teach them not to repeat their conduct—teach them that towards me they should have noted with something like decency and moderation. When some members have thrown upon me affronts of no ordinary kind—have even dug up the bones of a departed brother and flung them in my teeth, they must and will be taught a lesson they will not readily forget unless I am deprived of the powers of speech.

The next member who spoke was Mr. Chambers who gave us long discourse on the tariff, and who endeavored to give us the benefit of his general knowledge of business. I do not think, however, that he met the argument that I had put fairly before the House, but I shall speak of him with respect, because his treatment of me merits such a return. He told us that his children had put into his valise a couple of books from which he read,—I have heard of a good many clever children—some exceedingly clever ones—who could instruct their parents, but if he has children capable of comprehending those books their precociousness must have arisen from the principles which make the parent resemble Nebuchadnezzar, who “ate grass like an ox.” He told me that he and I started in life together,—I did not feel much flattered at that, because I was under the delusion that he had started in life ten years before me; but he went on to say that I had obtained what I sought: a high position in this country. That reminded me of a remark made by the late Mr. William Murdoch, when he was about to depart from Nova Scotia,—some of his friends gave him

[Page 109]

a supper party, at which his health was proposed by Mr. Howe, who passed a high encomium on him for his abilities, and for the position which he had acquired. Mr. Murdoch, who was well known not to be a public speaker, got up and said: “Mr. Howe and I set out in life at the same period but with different objects, and we both obtained them,—he sought fame and he got it—I sought money and I have it.” I know that I have not obtained very great fame, but I know that the hon. member for Colchester has obtained money. If the object of my desire is still glittering before me, that is not the case with him, and I congratulate him on his success. He talked, however, about the wild woods of Canada in such a way that would lead one to suppose that he had never been in Canada,—I can tell him that away up in those wildernesses they have cities containing four times the population of Halifax, and that he should remember, when talking about our fine folks off Nova Scotia, “who, like Robinson Crusoe are “monarchs of all they survey,” that the waste, howling wilderness of Canada contains more than four times the population of Nova Scotia. The Chinese used to talk about “outside barbarians,” and used to think that “these English were not fit to associate with the great people of China,” and so it is with some great people in Nova Scotia, who say to the Canadians, “oh, keep away from us you backwoods’ people, we want our country for ourselves, and wish you would leave us alone in peace.” It has been said that in my remarks in a previous debate I attempted to attach a stigma upon the people of Colchester,—every member of the House must know that nothing was farther from my thoughts,—I was trying to turn into laughter and ridicule a remark made about the people shouldering their muskets in the cause of repeal. Outside of the House it has been said that I insulted the people of Colchester,—I leave it to those who heard me to say whether that is true or not.

The hon. member for Colchester, Mr. Chambers, found that his notes had got into confusion; “but,” said he, “I am here to make the worst of Confederation.” Nothing could be more honest than that admission, and if all the gentlemen around me would make as clean a breast of it I could understand them better. The hon. gentleman admits that he is not here to look at the matter in a fair light, but to make of it the very worst that he can. He told us also that he came here unpledged to the policy of repeal, and I rather think there are a good many like him, for while I am free to admit that the subject of Confederation was to a large extent before the people at the elections, I deny most emphatically that repeal was the great question before the country. I assert with-out fear of contradiction, because I have it on excellent authority, that one of the members for Halifax denied and repudiated that he was running for repeal during the election contest, at St. Margaret’s Bay. Mr. Jones and one of his colleagues made that denial most emphatically during the canvass, putting, as the issue before the electors, the propriety of punishing the men who had carried Confederation. The hon. member, Mr. Chambers, went on to say “we are all open to conviction”—”I would not like to doubt his assertion, but I believe, something like this of his friends, that

“A man convinced against his will Is of the same opinion still.”

I think all that could be done in the way of reaching their convictions would not accomplish a great deal. He gave us a very telling description of a suppositious case—of my having gone to Ottawa, and having obtained as a match for my daughter a duke or a lord, and then having forced her into matrimony. I have no idea of going to Ottawa; I want to stand by the wreck, if we must call it so, to the last, and I will remain here as long as any constituency honors me with its confidence; but if I wanted a duke or a lord, that would hardly be the place to go for one, and I can assure him I would take care that the interests of all parties were consulted. In course of his speech the hon. member told us that he could make a tariff in two days. What a fortunate county Colchester is to have two representatives, one of whom could make a volume of revised statutes in a week, while the other could make a tariff for the Dominion in two days. Let us hand over to them all the business which usually occupies the time of the Legislature, and I have no doubt these two great minds would arrange all the affairs of the country without any difficulty. Their accomplishments would make the eighth wonder of the world, and I only hope they will not hide their talents under a bushel. I have not time to follow the hon. gentleman through all his remarks about the duties, but I understood him to say, in reference to the shipbuilders, that ‘e did not pity them—that they were served right, for “while they live they live, and when they die they pay nobody.” He reminded me of an old adage, which does not apply to him, but which runs:

“He who drinks grog at night and goes to bed mellow Lives as he ought to live, and dies a jolly fellow.”

I think that some of the hon. member’s friends, for instance the hon. member for Yarmouth, and the hon. member for Pictou, Mr. Copeland, will hardly think themselves complimented at the idea of the probability of their dying some of these days and paying nobody. I was surprised at the versatility of the hon. member for Colchester. He drew illustrations from nearly every source, and came at last to Marryatt’s novels, from which he gave us a description, that I hardly think he meant to apply to me, because it is a description of a dog, not of a man. They drowned him, and he would not die; they shot him, and he would not die; they hanged him, and he would not die; and this makes me think he must have referred to me, because I have been shot at and stabbed, and yet here I am alive and to the fore.

The hon. member read us an extract from one of his books. I thought, it was never going to end, but at last it did, and he sat down after talking so long and so fast that he could talk no longer. But, like Snarleyow, he came to life again, and in course of a dis-

[Page 110]

sertation of an hour and a half said that it had been put on him to review the tariff. Who put that task upon him? Was it done in caucus, or did the Government put it upon him, feeling that they had not enough ability among themselves to discuss the matter? I do not wonder at the selection, however, because if Mr. Chambers could make a tariff in two days, he was just the man for the undertaking. We have in the Government a Finance Minister, an Attorney General, and other unofficial members, but their duties are delegated—one member gets the tariff to deal with, another touches upon the finance question, and so on all around. I have now finished my review of the speeches of the hon. member for Colchester, and if I have said anything offensive, I trust he will not take it in that light, for I have not meant it so.

The next gentleman to whose remarks I will refer is the hon. member for Victoria, who, smarting under some observations which I had made on a previous day, rose with the determination of hurling around him without consideration or reflection, such anathemas and vituperation as are rarely heard here. I ask him if he knew that he was talking of men whom this country delighted to honor for forty years, when he talked of a few blacklegs coming down from Canada? When did we ever hear this Legislature disgraced by such language before?

The SPEAKER—Order.

Mr. Blanchard continued:—I feel that I am right in what I have said, when I am commenting upon an epithet too opprobrious to be used here. I have spoken about “bad English,” but I ask if worse English than the expression to which I have referred could proceed out of the mouth of any person? The hon. member said that these men, delegated as they were by the highest authority in Canada, should have three years in the Penitentiary. Let those who are out of that institution plume themselves on the fact. I ask any member of this House, or any man who hears me, to go home and think of himself, of the position he occupies, of those who are near and dear to him, and I ask if one man out of fifty thousand can say after that examination: “There is no spot on one of those with whom I am connected.” Let the hon. member consider that, and when he next feels inclined to hurl the epithets “blackleg” and “common drunkard,” let him remember that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.

The SPEAKER said that Mr. Blanchard’s language and manner were calculated to irritate members.

Mr. Blanchard continued:—I have sat here for three or four days listening to such language as no ordinary man would submit to, while such language is used in reference to those whom I respect, as long as I draw the breath of life I will not suffer those who use it to escape with impunity—they must take the consequence. The hon. member for Victoria said that the Canadian Government, having reduced this country to the verge of bankruptcy, were now calling on us to pay their deficiencies. That is not the fact, and the hon. member should have known that we go into Confederation with an equal debt, and that the surplus debt of Canada is to be paid out of his local revenues. He also said that Cape Breton had petitioned to be annexed,—I gave proof for my assertions on the subject of that union, and I ask him to give his proof for that. But at the close of the hon. member’s speech he said that he was about to reveal a state of facts that was not at all creditable,—he undertook to say that, desiring some alterations in post rides he had called on the Postmaster General, and that the answer of that officer was, “have you seen Mr. Blanchard?” He then went on to ask if I was the man to be consulted, insinuating that I controlled the post office patronage of this country. He had not resumed his seat an instant when, not knowing what he meant, I asked whether the changes were not in post rides that run through my own county. I received no answer to that question, and I ask what the House thinks of a member coming and trying to cast a slur upon me and upon the Postmaster General, without being in a position to answer that question on the spot. But what will be thought of him when I read the correspondence which passed between Mr. Woodgate and myself at the close of the hon. member’s speech? I wrote this note to the Postmaster General:

Halifax, Feby. 15th, 1868.

A. Woodgate, Esq.

Dear Sir,—Mr. Kidston has just stated in the House that on asking you about some Post Office changes, you asked him if he had consulted me. Will you be kind enough to let me know if the above is correct; and if so, under what circumstances you made the observation.

Yours truly,

(Signed) H. Blanchard.

————

General Post Office,

Halifax, Feb. 15, 1868.

Dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, and to state that some few days ago, Mr. Kidston called at my office, and suggested some changes in the mail route between Plaister Cove and Baddeck and Mabou, Whycocomagh and Baddeck. After expressing, each of us, our views on the subject, I said: “Have you consulted Mr. Blanchard?” or “Would it not be best to speak to Mr. Blanchard on this matter?” or words to that effect. I mentioned this, as you were one of the members of this county, and I considered you should have a voice in such cases; at the same time, I never for one moment supposed Mr. Kidston would bring on the floors of this House a conversation which I looked upon as altogether private, for the time being, as of course such mail alteration would have to be referred now to Ottawa.

I am, yours respectfully,

A. Woodgate.

H. Blanchard, Esq., M. P. P.

The fact was that two-thirds of the whole rides which he wished altered were in my county. The hon. member, I repeat, got up and in the most open manner charged me

[Page 111]

with controlling the management of the Post Office, when the Postmaster General had merely referred to me because I was immediately interested in the subject. The post rides referred to are those running through to Baddeck and affecting Mabou, Whycocomagh and Plaister Cove, and I ask what right or business one of the members for Victoria had to interfere and ask for a change in matters relating to my own county without consulting me? I should like to pay some attention to the gentlemanly speech of the hon. member for Queens, Mr. Freeman, but the abundant field for remark with which others have furnished me has left little time to delay. But he made one remark which was very true and for which I thank him. He told us that in six years Canada had increased in population by 582,000 persons. Is this the wild howling wilderness that we have heard of? Has this been going on in the backwoods about which the changes have been rung from one end of the country to the other? In six years its increase has been larger than the whole population of Nova Scotia. This is the terrible country with which we are connected, and which is hanging like a millstone about our necks. I thank the hon. member for the illustration, and I feel that when he comes to reflect upon it he will see that a very great deal of the contumely that has been heaped upon Canada is undeserved, because she is a great and growing country. In reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax, Mr. Cochran, concerning the feeling in the city, I will merely say that my observations were made in answer to some remarks about a great change having taken place in public opinion here, and about the return of five Anti-Confederate members being a proof that a large majority of this constituency were unfavorable to union. I said that, as I was informed, the city had thrown a considerable majority in favor of Confederation—to that his colleague assented, but I did not say, and I should be sorry to say, that the whole wealth and intelligence of the metropolis were with us. I will say nothing of the influences which he spoke of further than to remark that I have seen such assertions as he made here denied most emphatically. I would be sorry to intimate that the hon. gentleman would say anything that he does not know to be true, but when he says that the Dominion authorities sent down a despatch telling the employees to vote for the Union candidates on pain of dismissal, I take leave to tell him that I wish the assertion to be proved. Mr. Tilley denied it in the most clear terms, and if the proof can be given, I take it for granted that it will be produced, but until then I take the liberty of denying the assertion.

I had nearly forgotten to notice the speech of the Provincial Secretary, who, contrary to the usage of members of Government, of putting themselves in the forefront of the battle, waited until nearly all the ammunition had been expended and nearly all the guns had been fired off, and then came to the rescue by giving to the House his version of the subject. He told us that he was once a Unionist. I am very sorry for his perversion, and as some of his followers have held out the flag of truce to me, saying, “come with us, and we will do thee good,” I feel inclined to say the same to him, more especially as he should have been led by manly, British feeling to come to the aid of one who was being pitched into by some dozen of his opponents. The Provincial Secretary said that our harbors are open all the year round, while those of Canada are closed in winter, and that therefore our condition was not suitable for a Union. I can understand a gentleman living on the South Shore talking in that way, but if he came with me to visit the ports on the Gulf of St. Lawrence—some of them the finest in this Province—he would find it hard to discover an open harbor in winter. Where, in the fine County of Pictou, is there an open harbor? Has Sydney an open harbor? Then going around by Wallace, Pugwash, Windsor and Hantsport, and the other ports on the Bay of Fundy, he would find the harbors all closed. Yet he says that the Union is unsuitable because our ports are open and those of Canada closed. We would do well enough, the Provincial Secretary thinks, united to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and yet the ports of the Island are closed until May. As to New Brunswick, it is true that a considerable coast is open, but the flourishing parts are closed for six months. What, then, becomes of his argument?

He told us also that the figures prepared by Mr. Johnston were calculated to deceive, and that we are to lose by Confederation $480,000 this year. I will not say that the figures of the Provincial Secretary were calculated for the purpose of deception, but how did he arrange them? All that is due on the Provincial building was charged against next year, when he knows that that is a part of the public debt. The building represents its whole cost; if the Dominion takes it the building will be set down at its cost, and the balance will be paid out of the Dominion treasury; and I ask then why, instead of being credited, it was charged against our revenues? I do not care whether you call it 40,000 pounds or the building; if we hand it over to Canada we must get credit for it, and therefore I say that a great mistake was made in charging the balance against next year’s revenue. But what more? The Province has to provide two-thirds of the cost of a new Poors’ Asylum; but by what jugglery can the Provincial Secretary charge the whole cost against next year’s income? The cost is to be scattered over several years, or will be merely interest-bearing debt.

The next observation of the hon. gentleman was that the Quebec Scheme was better than the new arrangement, because it gave the Local Legislatures the right to tax our exports. I am thankful that the delegates had wisdom enough to take away that power, because if there be any duty more hurtful and detestable than another it is an export duty. New Brunswick, it is true, has an export duty of one shilling per ton on timber, and we have a royalty of sixpence per ton on coal, but we should be exceedingly glad that the possibility of any increased tax

[Page 112]

being imposed has been removed. I would infinitely prefer that a revenue should be raised by a tax on incomes or a per capita tax than by an export duty, and I am therefore, I repeat, glad that the right was taken away by the British Parliament. That step was not taken with a view of giving to the General Government the right to impose the duty, but to prevent difficulties from arising. Suppose, for example, that New Brunswick imposed an export duty of twenty per cent. upon some articles produced only by her, the result would be that the other Provinces would be taxed to that extent for the peculiar products of the Colony of New Brunswick. We were to be made one in effect, and yet that power would enable the Local Legislature to create hostility and inconvenience, and yet the Provincial Secretary considers this one of the disadvantages of the new scheme. He quoted Dr. Tupper to me. I am not bound to look at that gentleman as very high authority, and when the hon. member gives me Dr. Tupper I will give him Mr. Howe, and my authority will be as good with him as is with me. When Dr. Tupper said that the House should have been dissolved in 1860, and Mr. Howe said it should not, Mr. Howe was right, and the British Government so decided. He had around him men who were capable of telling him what the constitutional law was. I was not a member of his Government at that or any other time; my advice was never asked by Mr. Howe, nor was it ever tendered to him, but he had around him men who were competent to do their duties well.

The Prov. Secy. said that I had boasted having been brought up at the feet of Howe and Young, and he and others associated me with democratic principles. I repudiate the imputation. The liberal party of this country went in for reform and progress; but they had as much true conservatism among them as the conservative party had. Some of the conservatives of this country jumped over our heads and became radicals, while we were the true conservatives. While I learnt the principles of progress and adopted them, I learnt also that the conservation of the rights of the Crown and of Parliament were as necessary as the conservation of the people’s rights. He told us that some one had made the remark that Earl Russell, while in power, was a Tory, and while in opposition was a Liberal. I should like to ask him whether he, now that he is in power, is a Liberal or a Tory? What kind of a heterogeneous government have we? A repeal government some say,—that is all, they are like a bunch of sticks, with nothing to tie them together,—they have no other policy than that expressed in the shout of the hon. member for Colchester: “Repeal! Repeal! Repeal!” Yet these gentlemen say to me, “get away from us, you are a democrat—you were brought up at the feet of Howe and Young—we are the true conservatives—stand aside and let greater men pass.” I did not expect to hear from a member with so soft a voice and gentlemanly a manner as the Prov. Secy. has, such strong language as he used. He talked about people hanging me from every barn in the country. Some one threatened to hang me as high as Haman; but why erect a gallows forty cubits high for that purpose if I have been hung already? The hon. gentleman had better be careful that the popular tide does not change, and he will find himself hanging in effigy to a barn in Digby some day. Popularity is often very evanescent, and the day may come when even he will find himself deserted by many of his followers. He can tell us what is to be the result of this appeal to the Throne! He is in the confidence of Her Majesty’s Government!! and no doubt carries on a correspondence across the water!!! He tells the country “do not be alarmed; I, the Prov. Secy., having held office for three months, have the wisdom and authority to tell you what will come to pass.” When we get to the doors of the Colonial Secretary’s office, whether we have to knock down its walls with ram’s horns or not, I will tell you what the answer will be: It will be “take back your constitution, and then new life will be infused into Nova Scotia, and we will have an immense revenue to distribute.” What a beautiful picture of the change that is to take place in this latter day of his dreams. Nova Scotia is to have such prosperity as was never heard of before, and her trade will be so vigorous that she will not mind a fifteen per cent. tariff. He does not pretend, however, that had we remained as we were, our duties would not have had to be raised.

I have passed over the speech of the Prov. Secretary, mere hurriedly than I should like to have done had time permitted delay, but I come now to the speech of the hon. member for Lunenburg. I feel it due to him to say that I regret the circumstances under which his speech on the first evening was interrupted. His address was not marred by anything of which I can complain, but while advocating the views he held with all earnestness, he avoided references which others made, and which in my opinion were out of place. He said, and the statement was repeated by others, that the constitution of England was not changed by Catholic Emancipation and the repeal of the Corn Laws, but that these measures increased the liberties of the people. I deny that in toto, in the sense in which the terms are applied. Who were the people of Great Britain before Catholic Emancipation was passed? The people who had control of the Government, and of every public office, and from whom alone the Sovereign could come, were the Protestants of Great Britain. Outside of these there were no “people” according to the constitution. The Catholics were not recognized as a part of the people, but were deprived of the rights of British subjects. Instead, therefore, of the emancipation being an extension of the liberties of the people it was a curtailment of them, because by throwing in large additions of Catholics to the constituencies, the powers of those who before had held the franchise were abridged. Some of those who engaged in this debate may be wiser than Burke and Pitt, but these men declared the measure to be an infringement of the constitution as adopted at the revolution. They carried the bill through Parliament, however, in spite of an immense majority of the people, who were

[Page 113]

never asked to vote on the question at the polls. Parliament passed the Act and decided the question by opening their doors and every office in the kingdom save one to the aspiration of every honest Catholic subject. I deny most emphatically that these changes were referred to the people, and that they were not made in opposition to the feelings of the majority of the electors. A reference was also made to the Stamp Act passed to tax the American colonies, and while on that subject I wish to show the distinction between that Act and the Stamp Act recently brought into operation. The Attorney General and others attempted to show an analogy, and tried to make it appear that the existing Stamp Act was passed and enforced by a foreign Parliament. Such, however, is not the case. The first was passed by the Parliament of Great Britain to make the colonies pay a share of the expenses of the war which had just terminated between England and France,—a war in which the colonies had spent some of their best blood, and a share of their treasure. But the whole comparison is done away when we reflect that the existing Act was passed by a Parliament in which we have a voice. Gentlemen may say that it is a small voice and not worth having,—no matter how small it changes the constitutional rule relating to the whole matter. The objection was to “taxation without representation,” but we have a representation.

From more than one member here, and over and over again in this discussion, we have heard that the scheme of Union was objectionable, because one of the delegates, while passing through Quebec, attached his name to it on Sunday morning,—it has never been pretended that more than one did it. The deed, of course, was to be regretted, but I can tell gentlemen that there has been more heavy sins than that committed round these benches within the past few days, and it would be well for us all if, when the time approached, for us to leave the world if we had no greater sin to answer for. I can appreciate a due regard for the Sabbath and the propriety of observing it with decorum, but I cannot appreciate this double refining, this straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Some of the gentlemen who made this objection committed a worse sin within half an hour afterwards by reviling their neighbors.

(The usual hour for adjournment having arrived, the debate was adjourned and the House adjourned.)