Document Information

Date: 1867-04-02
By: Nova Scotia (House of Assembly)
Citation: Nova Scotia, House of Assembly, Debates and Proceedings of the House of Assembly, 23rd Parl, 4th Sess, 1867 at 98-104.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

Click here to view the rest of Nova Scotia’s Confederation Debates for 1867.

DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVA SCOTIA. 1867.

TUESDAY, April 2.

[…]

• (p. 98)

LOCAL CONSTITUTIONS

Hon. Provincial Secretary moved the resolution of which he had given notice on the previous day with respect to the number of members of which the Legislative Council should in future be composed. 

Mr. Annand asked whether it would be wise  to limit the number of Legislative Councillors for all time to come?

Hon. Provincial Secretary answered that it was only intended to limit the number to 18, as it was now limited to 21, it being still the prerogative of the Crown to add to the number. 

Mr. Ross said that one of the grounds on which the reduction had been made in the members of the House was that the work would be largely diminished; and another was, that a saving would be effected. He did not see why the same arguments would not apply to the upper branch, and why the reduction should not be in the same proportion, which would make the number of Councillors 13 or 14. If the government, at the eleventh hour, were se favourable to retrenchment they should avail themselves of this opportunity. 

(The Legislative Council announced by message that they had passed a bill to incorporate the Amherst boot and shoe manufacturing company, and agreed to the bills to legalise the proceedings of the Sessions of Cape Breton county, and the bills to incorporate the Wellington Mining Company, the Palmerston, Dominion, Blue Lead, Union, Provincial and Eldorado Gold Mining Companies.)

Hon. Provincial Secretary, in answer to Mr. Ross, said he thought it would be a doubtful policy to make a branch of the legislature so small as had been suggested. The number of the Councils of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick bore a greater disproportion to the lower branches in those Provinces than that which would exist if the resolution passed. He felt he need hardly say that the government would only have been too glad to have effected a further saving in that particular if it had been consistent with the public interests to do so. While they could claim credit for an almost lavish expenditure on the two great services of the country—education and roads and bridges—they had taken the earliest opportunity to bring forward a measure which would largely reduce the legislative expenses, and were therefore deserving of the compliments passed upon their economy,—The difficulty which had met him on a previous occasion when he moved a reduction of the public expenditure was that the civil list was beyond the control of the House—and the Imperial Government had testified its dissent to any such reduction, in a strong despatch. Although his opponents were right in their prediction that the financial condition of the country would be such as not to demand so extensive a system of retrenchment, yet the government from the first day they had obtained power had strenuously endeavoured to obtain the power for the legislature to deal with the subject, and this had been accomplished by the recent action in connection with Confederation. The government had no sooner secured that right for the legislature than they brought forward a measure which would largely diminish the public expenditure, and had succeeded in passing it notwithstanding the opposition from the other side. The alterations effected by the civil list bill were far more extensive than any scheme of retrenchment which he had ever submitted to the legislature.

Mr. Killam said that the greater part of the salaries referred to had always been under the control of the Legislature, and it should he remembered that while the reduction had been made, the government had taken away the means of paying these salaries. The economy was very trifling, and the whole scope of the alterations in the Legislature evidently was to increase the influence of the Crown and to diminish that of the people. If ever there was a time when the Council could be dispensed with, it was now. 

Hon. Attorney General asked how such a proposition as that with which Mr. Killam had concluded agreed with the statement that no change should be made in the constitution at this time? 

Mr. Locke expressed himself favorable to the abolition of the Legislative Council. 

Hon. Provincial Secretary asked how it was that the hon. gentleman always lost sight of that proposition when in power? 

Mr. Locke said that it might have been owing to a difference of opinion on the part of his friends. 

Mr. McLelan said that although he had hitherto regarded the upper branch as of value, yet under the many guards and checks which would be applied under Confederation, he thought it might very well be dispensed with. The Provincial Secretary had expressed his willingness to economize as soon as the opportunity offered, and here was an opportunity for retrenchment. It was very strange that that gentleman was not aware when he proposed his retrenchment scheme in 1863, of the difficulties that laid in the way. It was pleasing to be informed that Confederation would be the means of effecting retrenchment, for the general belief was that it would impose large additional burdens on the country. Whatever small saving could be effected in local matters would be far outweighed by the burthen of the general government, and the policy was therefore “penny wise and pound foolish.” le thought that the Legislative Councillors could […]

• (p. 99)

[…] be easily provided for: twelve of them could get seats in the Senate, and their services could be very well dispensed with, while on the other hand the popular branch should have been kept as large as possible.

The resolution passed.

[…]

THE LOCAL CONSTITUTION.

Hon. Provincial Secretary moved the third reading of the bill relative to executive and legislative disabilities. He said that on consideration the Government had decided not to alter the bill, as the difficulty mentioned on the previous day could not be readily obviated, and it was so improbable that any such should arise, that it might safely be left to take care of itself. 

Mr. S. Campbell thought the bill did not express what the Government intended it should—it did not prevent a person offering for seats in both the Local and Federal Legislatures. 

Hon. Attorney General thought the bill contained all the provisions that should be inserted. When a man was once elected for the House of Commons, or appointed to the Senate, his seat in the lower Parliament would be vacated, but there was nothing to prevent a man being simultaneously elected for both Houses. This was all that could be done, for if the bill provided that the seat should be forfeited if a member were elected to the other Parliament with his consent, great difficulties would arise in proving his consent. It was very improbable that any man would offer for a seat which he was ineligible to fill. 

Hon. Provincial Secretary said that there did not seem to be any means of preventing a candidate from offering for both Houses, —all that could be done was to vacate his seat in the lower House elected to the House of Commons. 

Hon. Financial Secretary said that would be easy to prevent the double: nomination in one county, but a man might be nominated for the local Parliament in one county and for the House of Commons in another. 

Mr. Coffin thought the difficulty could be obviated easily. 

Mr. Robertson said that the difficulty would not occur in the case of gentlemen on, the Government side, for they would have difficulty enough in securing seats in either House. 

Mr. McLelan thought that a man should not be allowed to be nominated for two seats. The ineligibility caused by his election to both would cause the trouble of a second election. 

Mr. Archibald said that the difficulty could only arise in the first election, and could not be well met because if a provision was inserted that election by the assent of the candidate to both seats would vacate one, then a man elected without his assent could sit in both. 

Hon. Attorney General said that the seat should not be vacated by the mere nomination; the incompatibility arose only from his accepting the two positions. 

Mr. S. Campbell thought that the bill was ineffectual to accomplish what the Government had expressed as their intention. It was admitted that some difficulty might arise from the framing of the bill, and he did not see why the language should not be adapted to meet the requirements of the case. 

Mr. Ross expressed his approval of the system followed in some of the other Colonies, of allowing gentlemen to sit in both Parliaments. He also advocated as an improvement the election of the local Governor by the people. 

Mr. McLelan remarked that the Province was being dealt with in this respect differently from the other Provinces, and the history of the past few months showed that the case of Nova Scotia was peculiar. Some gentlemen professed more respect for a few old volumes than for the opinions of the people. A measure should be passed which would prevent those gentlemen who had effected Confederation from coming into both Legislatures, and thus leaving the people practically unrepresented. If Mr. Archibald ran for both Houses and carried both seats, the country would be unrepresented, because that gentleman would not hesitate to hold up a book and say that. he valued more highly the author’s opinions than. those of the backwoodsmen of Colchester. 

Hon. Attorney General admitted that Nova Scotia was in a peculiar position, for it presented the first instance in parliamentary history in which a minority of one-third of the legislature undertook to represent the people. It had been said that the people of this Province were opposed to Confederation, and the delegates had heard across the water that petitions from an overwhelming majority of the elctors were to be presented […]

• (p. 100)

[…] to the British Parliament against the scheme. He had a right to ask what had become of those petitions? The delegates had expected a monstrous petition to be presented to the House of Lords, but were disappointed when not a signature appeared, and thought that the battle had been postponed, to be fought on the floors of the House of Commons; their surprise could be imagined when the debate passed over without any such demonstration. Was then the assertion about the feelings of the people warranted? The opposition offered to the bill showed a fear that the majority really represented the people, for gentlemen seemed afraid that members on the Government side would secure two seats. 

Mr. Archibald said he did not see much danger of Colchester being unrepresented. He had not much opportunity of hearing how popular opinion ran in his county on the subject of Confederation, but he believed the hon. gentleman (Mr. McLelan) had lost no opportunity of fostering feelings of opposition to the measure, and had not thought it beneath his position to convene his (Mr. A.’s) constituents and personal. friends, in order to create feelings of animosity against him. It would have been more mauly [sic] to have waited until the matter could be discussed face to face. The time was at hand when it would be seen whether all these efforts were to be successful, but he would recommend gentlemen not to speak too confidently before the verdict was given. He would have no fear of the result, even though he had to meet a gentleman who had availed himself of such ungenerous means as he had described.

Mr. S. Campbell said that he only opposed, the bill from a desire that the legislation should be perfectly matured, and he could not therefore be charged with giving factious opposition. If the other bills had been allowed to pass as introduced, the alterations which he had suggested would probably have been made in the Upper House, and that would have thrown discredit on the Assembly. 

Hon. Financial Secretary said there was no objection to the hon. member taking credit for the slight verbal alterations which had been made in courtesy at his suggestion. He would not go into the question whether the majority truly represented the people or whether all the boasting that had been heard rested on as firm a basis as the authority of the people’s delegates. He thought that these declarations would prove as baseless as the assertions of the men representing themselves as delegates by virtue of petitions which they never had the boldness to exhibit. He thought the time had come when these gentlemen should state whether it was a fact or not that the petitions of two-thirds of the electors had never seen the light of day. 

1. Annand said that after such a challenge it would not be consistent with his duty to the people to remain silent. He was not in London at the time when the petitions could have been presented,—before the bill was read a second lime in the House of Lords he bad taken passage for Nova Scotia. The petitions were, however, addressed to the House of Commons, and as he had previously stated, the bill had been read there, contrary to precedent, before the printed papers stating the whole case were laid on the table. There was, therefore, not time to present them at the time when they would appropriately have come under consideration. As to the number of petitioners, the signatures were about 40,000. A few years ago a petition was considered of so much weight as that it should have turned out a government when it had only received 24,000 names. The petitions on the subject of Confederation were signed as those were. It was well known that every man in the country could not write his name, some of the names were therefore in the hand writing of one person;-in one case in his own county, a public meeting had been convened and one person appended the names of such as assented to the petition against Confederation. There was no rule of that House to prevent the reception of a petition to which any other than bona fide signatures were attached, but in the House of Commons there was such a rule and it was difficult to bring many of the petitions within the rule. The delegates were recommended to put them into the hands of an eminent member of that House, but he declined to present them as he would be held responsible for every signature. Another gentleman was applied to, but he, being a warm friend of the late Colonial Secretary, was persuaded not to present them after he had promised to do so. The inference to be drawn from these facts was that the leading men on both sides were anxious to confederate the Provinces, that they were averse to our being heard by petition, and wished to take advantage of the position in which our legislature had placed us.—Under these circumstances the people’s delegates had abandoned the idea of presenting the petitions, more especially because of the unprecedented haste in reading the bill a second time and from the fact that Confederation was a foregone conclusion and because the feeling all around the house evidently was to get rid of the Colonies and prepare us for independence. What other explanation could be given of the intelligence from Canada that a nucleus of a standing army was to be formed by drafting 5000 men who should be paid by the Confederation? The meaning of this was that we were being educated up to independence and the Provinces were rapidly approaching that point. 

Mr. McLelan did not see why there should be so much ado about the matter when so early an opportunity would be afforded of testing the feelings of the people. Mr. Archibald had been absent from the country for eight months, and was it to be supposed that those differing from him should not utter a word during all the time that be chose to absent himself? It was not true that he had called meetings to discuss the question in Mr. A.’s constituency, for he had more than once declined to attend such meetings in that gentleman’s absence, but he was now ready to meet him at any meeting that might be called. As to a meeting of Mr. Archibald’s personal friends, he presumed the allusion was to a purely business meeting which certain leading men […]

• (p. 101)

[…] had thought it desirable to hold at a time when action was required. That was not a meeting for a discussion at all.

Hon. Provincial Secretary said that, speaking as one of the people of Nova Scotia, he must express his strong disapproval of the manner in which one of his delegates had discharged his duty as explained to the House. The Legislature had not given the hon. member any authority to go across the water; in fact, his action had been condemned as a gross assumption, as entirely incompatible with the system of government which we enjoy. Selected by some irresponsible persons, in defiance of the principles of the British constitution, the hon. member undertook to present himself before the British Government and Parliament as one of the “people’s delegates.”—Having spent a great deal of time and money, the hon. gentleman now volunteered an explanation of the way in which he had discharged his trust to the members of the Legislature, as a portion of the people whom he undertook to represent. The House was aware that the hon. member spent some seven months in England pretending to be a people’s delegate. In common with two other gentlemen, he undertook to teach the people of England how to deal with an important question, and had given the people of this country an enormous amount of trouble, and had expended a great deal of money, in sending perambulators through the Province for the purpose of getting up petitions.—Now, after all he had done, the hon. member had condescended to give the House and country some explanations. These explanations reminded one of the story of the person who had been called upon to pay for a newspaper which had been sent to him; he put in a variety of pleas; he said he never subscribed to it, that he never took it, that it was never sent to him, and if it was sent to him, he never took it out of the post office, and that he had paid for it already. It  now appeared that, notwithstanding all the time and money spent, the petitions were of a character that precluded their being presented to the British Parliament. From want of information on his own part, he had misled the people. Had not he (Dr. T.) as one of the people, then, a right to complain of the hon. member? The hon. member had acknowledged that the petitions had been treated with contempt—that no member of the British Parliament could be induced to present them. Having presented himself in England without any authority, having volunteered his services to the people of this country, he now confessed that the moment the battle was commenced in England he ran away. When he had spent seven months in England, the moment anything was to be done he took his passage and returned home. Did the hon. member mean to say that the people of this country would consider such action on his part as a proper mode of discharging his duties? Any person who knew anything about public life, about the usages and practices of Parliament, ought to have known that the petitions the hon. member took with him—signed as they were in numerous cases by a single person, scores of names having been put on the petitions without the knowledge of the individuals—could never have been presented to the House of Commons. If the hon. member and his friends had ventured to bring their petitions from the dust bin into which they had obviously been consigned, he (Dr. T.) had been fully prepared to show their character. They found the moment they put themselves into communication with English gentlemen, that these petitions were as worthless as the paper they were written, and yet the hon. member complained that the petitions were treated with contempt. 

The hon. member for East Halifax had also presumed to say that the feeling prevalent in England was to get rid of the Colonies, but he never made a more unjustifiable statement in his life. Take the discussion that took place in both the Lords and Commons and it would be found that the great governing parties of the country, the Liberals and Conservatives, alike regarded this Union as strengthening the connection with the Crown. From the very inception of this Union, from the first despatch written on the subject, the same opinion was entertained by the statesmen of England. In fact, the argument which recommended itself particularly to the British Parliament, was that it increased and strengthened the tie that now binds these Colonies to the Empire. Such was the idea that exhibited itself on every page of the despatches of Mr. Cardwell, and an abler statesman was never entrusted with the Colonies. From the commencement of this question down to the time he attempted to prevent one of his political friends taking up a position, which he considered injurious to British subjects on this side of the Atlantic, he had not hesitated to express his deep conviction that the interests of the Empire required that these Colonies should be bound and cemented to it more closely than ever before, and that he regarded this union favourably on the ground that it would increase our power to cooperate with the parent state in sustaining our present connection.

The late Colonial Secretary, the Earl of Carnarvon, united with his predecessor, and declared that the Union would assure and perpetuate the connection between the Crown and Colonies. When the question was discussed in Parliament, although an insignificant opposition was raised by the friends of the self-constituted delegates of the people, every man who had a single word to say in favour of the Union did it on the ground,—and this was a fact that could not too deeply sink into the minds of the people of the country,—that it was the duty of England to stand by the Colonies, to regard any encroachment upon these Colonies, to regard any encroachment upon these Colonies as one upon the mother country. What did you find on the other side? Why, the friends of the “people’s delegates,”—the feeble echo they were able to get in the British Parliament,—declared that the Colonies were a burthen upon the Empire, and that they were hostile to the measure of the Union, because it bound the Colonial dependencies to England more closely than ever, and obliged her to assist in the construction of the Intercolonial Railway.

• (p. 102)

He would ask the House, with these facts standing indelibly recorded before them—with the debates of the House of Commons and Lords, proving that the few men who wished to sever the colonial connection and to prevent the construction of the Intercolonial Railway were the opponents of Union, whilst, on the other hand, the great majority of each of the two governing parties declared that they approved of Union because it drew these Colonies nearer to the Empire,—was there any one then prepared to repeat the libel upon the sentiments of the Imperial Parliament which the hon. member had invented? When Mr. Bright declared that he regarded these Colonies as a burthen, what did Mr. Watkins say? The hon. member ought certainly to have refrained from uttering a single word against Mr. Watkins. When Mr. Howe went to England, a few years ago, to advocate the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, he was taken by the hand by Mr. Watkins, who then, as now, was true to our interests. That gentleman took Mr. Howe from platform to platform, and introduced him to the people of England. Mr. Howe appreciated at that time the manner in which he had been treated by Mr. Watkins, and put his sentiments upon record when he returned. In 1867 Mr. Watkins, true to the advocacy of British American interests, advocated the claims of the Colonies in a most eloquent manner; and was now held up to the Legislature at a person influenced by interested motives. A feeling of shame should have prevented the hon. member from turning upon that gentleman, because he was true to the principles he had always professed. 

He was certainly amused to hear the hon. member refer to a story about a standing army that was being got up in Canada. The hon. gentleman knew that be was only attempting to mislead the country—that there had been no standing army arranged; but he bad taken up some idle newspaper rumor and given it currency. Suppose the Government of the Confederacy concluded that it would be wise and fair to the interests of the country to have a standing army, what then? The hon. member’s statement was on record that be was willing to pay pound for pound with the Canadians, and he had committed himself to the scheme for the organization of the Empire—The hon. member talked about taxation, and yet he bad himself admitted, as an act of justice to the people of England, that we should support the army and navy, just as they do, and pay as much as the people of Kent or Surrey. If the people of this Province, therefore, escaped a tax larger than their entire revenue, for defence alone, it was because the hon. member was powerless to carry it 

Mr. Annand said that as reference had been made to the feeling in England, he would invite attention to w hat had occurred in the House of Lords—to the speech of the Marquis of Normanby—who said that these Provinces were to choose their own future, either by separation in this way from the mother country, or by annexation to the United States if they preferred that. Not a single Lord rose to rebuke the sentiment. When such an expression could be used in such a place, what might be inferred of the feelings of the governing classes in England. Only one gentleman had spoken warmly in favor of connection with the mother country, in the House of Commons, and that was Mr. Watkins. He did not wish to attribute improper motives. but it was well known that that gentleman was identified with the railways of Canada, was interested in enhancing the value of Grand Trunk stock, and promoting the interests of the Hudson’s Bay Company. He had a pecuniary interest in this connection; that gentleman spoke warmly, but there was no response to his sentiments The House manifested the most chilling indifference, and the feeling out of doors was that these Colonies being the weak point of the Empire, England could not, while she was bound to defend them, speak brave words to the United States, and that we should therefore be put in a position in which a separation could be easily effected Under Confederation the only connecting link between England and the Colonies would be the appointment by the Crown of the Governor General,—in case of difficulty between the mother country and the Dominion, it would be easy to with. draw that officer. Some members of the Federal Government might then aspire to the position of President, and they would then only have to re echo the sentiments of Lord Normanby and Earl Derby to accomplish independence. Nothing would drive from his mind that the feeling which he had described was the prevailing one among the governing classes of England, although among the masses of the people the sentiment was largely in favor of the retention of the Colonies The Provincial Secretary’s remark about the guarantee for the railway reminded him of a conversation he had had with a gentleman holding a high and influential position in the great metropolis When he had represented to that gentleman that in addition to the railway there would be demands for enlarging canals, for erecting fortifications, for opening up the North West Territory, and that sixteen millions of pounds might be required before all was over, the answer was, that tat sum and double the amount should, in his opinion, be given to get rid of the indefensible Colony of Canada. Confederation was more popular in England from that view than from any other. At the first discussion on Confederation the people had been assured by the delegates at Temperance Hall that the entire sum to be required for defence would be a million of dollars but what had been seen since? Canada alone had expended two millions on that service,—Nova Scotia had made a handsome contribution, and so had New Brunswick,—and now we were advised that, in addition there was to be a standing army of five thousand men, the nucleus of an army which would cost two and a half millions. This was no idle rumor, as had been stated, it came authoritatively. When the Volunteer and Militia organizations were provided for the sum would be near ten millions. Any man must see that the Colonies were drifting […]

• (p. 103)

[…] into independence, and the question which would then arise would be how could that independence be maintained?

Mr. C.J. Campbell thought that the Anti-Confederates had been unfortunate in their selection of men to represent them. The disloyal sentiments propounded by the member for East Halifax in the streets, in the House, and in the press, were well known. The hon. member had seemed afraid of annexation, but he should remember that that was what he had been advocating although it was not what the people desired, and he might be pleased at getting back from England without being committed to close quarters. If the paper under the management of the hon. gentleman had been sent to England during his absence that would explain the contemptuous treatment of which complain had been made. He thought members might be more profitably employed than in answering the observations of the member East Halifax.

Hon. Provincial Secretary remarked that there was a bold line of demarcation between a desire to get tid [sic] of colonies, and the desire expressed by the Marquis of Normanby and other speakers, that the connecting tie should be one of affection and not of force. While members of the Imperial Parliament had said that if we desired independence no compulsion would be used to retain us, they had coupled the expression with the assurance that so long as we desired to remain in the present connection we should have all the aid that our position entitled to us to.—Little by little the difficulties which the friends of union had to surmount were coming to light—it was made apparent that not only had the member for East Halifax and his associates told the Imperial Government that they should rather spend their money upon iron-clads and Snider rifles than upon a railway which they had been for twenty-five years endeavoring to accomplish, and for which they had induced the House at one time to vote £66 000 per annum for forty years, but they had told influential gentlemen that the guarantee instead of being for twelve millions would be in reality for sixteen millions, and still the guarantee was given. He thanked the hon. member for the additional credit which would devolve upon the friends of union by its being shown that they had to meet not only the statements which their opponents had ventured to make, but also those which they had, without regard to truth poured into the ears of persons in England whom they had button-holed.

Hon. Attorney General said that the petitions must have been got up from some other purpose than that of presenting them to Parliament. He, as one of the people had a right to complain that these gentlemen had not obtained the necessary information before presuming to instruct the people as to the course to be pursued. It could not, however, be believed that they were ignorant of the rule of the British House of Commons; and there was this additional complaint that during their stay of five or six months in London they must have ascertained that the petitions were useless if they had devoted themselves to the object of their mission, and they could afterwards have procured proper signatures. The hon. member had however given too many reasons why the petitions had not been presented—one was that there was no opportunity before the second reading of the bill; but the bill had been for days before the House of Lords, the day for its discussion was announced, and they could have been presented to the Commons the moment the bill went down. The excuse, therefore, that no time was allowed was totally insufficient; and as to the statement that the petitions were not fit to be presented, the people had a right to know the actual state of things, instead of being deceived as they were by false intelligence form time to time. Up the last moment the people’s delegates had represented that there was no possibility of the bill passing the Commons, and the Government delegates were charged with hypocrisy in holding out promises of success. If the member for East Halifax left England before the contest came on, how could he speak as he had done about the way in which the bill was received and passed in the Commons? Up to the last hour, the gentleman opposing the bill in London had ventured the assertion that he had not met the first man in England favorable to the bill, and that its passage was out of the question, and the public mind throughout the province was agitated by such representations. How did the facts contrast with those statements? Not a man out of 600 members of the House could be found to present the petitions. That was the admission that those gentlemen were onliged to make, and the time would come when they would be held answerable by the people for the delusion they had created. The friends of Union, looked round anxiously to see from what quarter opposition was to come, but they looked in vain, for those best acquainted with the Colonies supported the bill, and expressed the most friendly feeling for the Colonies, while they intimated that if our people should desire independence, no constraint would be used to prevent them though they hoped that day would be far distant. The scene in the house of Commons when the leaders of the two great parties, in speaking the same sentiments on this question, were cheered by their opponents, was one that would not be easily effaced. Where any faint opposition was offered, the member would disavow hostility to the bill, and say that opposition would be useless, for the House was unanimous. That unanimity was the result of the conviction that union would contribute to the stability of the whole Empire. The hon. member for East Halifax had admitted the whole question in saying that the masses of the people were in favor of continuing the connection with the Colonies; our security, then, lay in the broad feeling of the people of England, and that feeling would be sure to find expression when the time of necessity came. The feeling in England was, that while the Colonies were disunited a few restless spirits, securing a majority in the smaller provinces, might destroy […] 

 […]

• (p. 104)

[…] the tie between them and the mother country, but the danger was diminished by Union. It was not to be wondered at that such a feeling should exist, and that there should be a desire to restrain such individuals when one gentleman professing to represent Nova Scotia declared that we were indefensible, and that he could raise a body of men in New York sufficient to wrest the Colonies from the grasp of England. 

The bill passed the third reading.

The house adjourned