Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

House of Commons, London, England

16 June 1868

“Motion for an Address”

(16,637 words)

Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

          MR. BRIGHT  Sir, about a month ago – on the 15th of May last – I presented a petition to the House from the representatives of the colony of Nova Scotia, and I now rise for the purpose of calling attention to that petition, and to statements made in it, and of proposing what appears to me to be a judicious course in regard to it.

          The Resolution which I have given Notice of consists of two parts – first, the statement of a fact which is easily proved; and, secondly, a statement of the mode in which the Government would do wisely to meet the difficult questions which have arisen.

          I am sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman who has charge in this House of colonial affairs is not here; but in the course of my argument he may come upon that Bench.

          The petition which I presented to the House makes what to all Englishmen must or ought to be considered a very serious complaint.  It complains that the Parliament of this country, by an Act passed in the last Session, overthrew the constitution of the colony of Nova Scotia, and destroyed a description – nay, in fact, a reality – of independence which had existed in that colony for nearly 100 years; that it handed over the Government and the destiny of the colony mainly to another colony – namely, that of Canada; and, taking from the people of Nova Scotia the management of their own affairs, the appointment of their own officials, the collection and expenditure of their own revenues, transferred the whole of these to a Parliament created by the Bill, which was to sit at Ottawa, distant not less than 800 miles from Nova Scotia.

          Now the petition declares – and I think it is capable of proof – that the House of Commons and the Parliament of the United Kingdom did all they could, not only without the consent of the colonists of Nova Scotia, but directly in the face of their pronounced disapproval; and I think it would be easy to show that what has been done was in reality done as a great surprise to the people of Nova Scotia, and that it was in some degree – though I am afraid to use a word that may seem harsh – a fraud upon the Imperial Parliament.

          At least, if it were not a fraud – and perhaps I had better withdraw that word – the Act was passed upon representations which were

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

extravagantly coloured, if they were not absolutely untrue.

          The Bill that passed last year did not include the colonies of Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland and for a very good reason, but for only one reason – namely, that the people of those two colonies did not take part in the discussion on this matter, and refused to be united to the other British North American Provinces.  A clause was inserted in the Bill which would enable them at any future time to enter on its consideration – a clause which was perfectly wise, and would have been still better if it had included Nova Scotia.

          It is quite clear that, for the very same reasons, if they have a real existence, Nova Scotia ought to have been excluded; and I shall ask the attention of the House while I show them that Nova Scotia had as much right to be excluded as the other two colonies, and as much right to complain of being included as they would have had if they had been included in the Bill.

          The petition which I presented to the House describes itself as a petition from the representatives of the people of Nova Scotia, and was signed as I shall state.  Out of nineteen Members who were elected last September to represent the Province of Nova Scotia in the Parliament at Ottawa, seventeen Members had given their assent to the petition, and had declared themselves opposed to the Confederation.

          But of the thirty-eight Members elected last September to the Nova Scotian Parliament or House of Assembly, not fewer than thirty-six have signed the petition.

          I think that if 640 or 650 out of the Members of this House signed a declaration on some great public question, it would be difficult to say, especially if it were a question of subverting our Constitution, and handing us over to somebody else, that that was not a very fair, satisfactory, and complete expression of the will of the people of the United Kingdom in regard to that matter.

          The case appears to me to have been on the part of Parliament simply one of great error – an error of haste and precipitation; but to the colony, if their opinions are as I believe them to be, it is one of very serious wrong.

          I know exactly beforehand what the right hon. Gentleman will say upon this matter.  He will say, "We have had the assent of the colony, and it is impossible for anybody to argue now that after what was done by the Legislature of Nova Scotia that the Province was wrongfully included

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

in the Act of last year."

          I should be very glad to have the matter placed on that footing; because, if it were once concluded by the House that the Bill, so far as Nova Scotia was concerned, was wrong, and ought to be repealed, and that the people of Nova Scotia were not consenting parties to it, then I think I should be able to prevail on the House to exclude Nova Scotia from the operation of the Bill.

          I say that not only did they not consent, but the Government of this country knew perfectly well that they did not consent.  In the debate that took place last year in the other House, where the Bill was first introduced, there was a very able and comprehensive speech delivered by the Earl of Carnarvon, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he referred to the question, and admitted its difficulty.

          Referring to the case of Nova Scotia, he said there was no petition against the Bill on the table of the House of Lords.  He said he believed there were petitions, and he insinuated something rather against them, for he added that though they were drawn with considerable ability, yet they had about them the mark of some single hand.  He said it was admitted that there were petitions, apparently from public meetings, signed chiefly by the chairman, no numbers of those who attended the meetings being given.

          He referred to what was done in 1861, when a Resolution, generally favourable to some kind of Confederation was passed in the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia; but, as he said, it was in very general terms, and therefore no one could say fairly that it had anything to do with this particular Bill or this particular form of Confederation.

          He referred also to what took place in 1863, when the Parliament of Nova Scotia was dissolved – that the Parliament existing at the moment had agreed to vote in favour of Confederation, and that the British Government and Parliament could not go back beyond that vote, assuming that the Colonial Parliament was perfectly competent to do what it did, and that what it did must be admitted, even if the people did not agree with it.

          He instanced the example of the Assembly of Jamaica two or three years ago, when that frightful catastrophe took place, and the Assembly was admitted by the Parliament of this country to be competent to destroy itself as a constitutional instrument of government. We know well that the Jamaica Assembly was a doomed body the moment

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

those transactions took place, and that, in point of fact, it only "committed suicide to save itself from slaughter," since if it had not done that, the very first act of the Imperial Parliament would have been to make some substantial change in the government of Jamaica.

          This is the sentence in which the Earl of Carnarvon expresses his feelings on the matter –

“The plea for delay is in reality a plea for indefinite postponement, and to this I do not believe that Parliament will lend its ear.  This measure has been purchased at the cost of great personal and local interests, and if we now remit it –  I care not on what pretence – to the further consideration of the Province, we deliberately invite opposition, and we may be sure that many years will pass over before another such proposal for Confederation is submitted to Parliament”
– [ 3 Hansard, clxxxv. 572.]

          It is quite clear from that expression that he knew perfectly well what was going on in the colony; how entirely dissatisfied the people were with the proceedings of this Parliament; and he feared that if there were any delay – for the Bill would not pass if Nova Scotia was not included – and the question was remitted to the decision of the people of Nova Scotia, the idea of the Federation of all the colonies would not be carried out for many years to come.

          I think that supports the proposition I am submitting to the House.  If the House determines – whether the people of Nova Scotia wish it or not – that that Province should be included in the Confederation, then I have no more to say on the matter.  I should argue it no longer, and should leave Parliament and the Government to take the consequences of a policy which in my opinion would be so foolish and so monstrous.

          What is the course which the House of Assembly and the people of the colony took on this matter?  I ask hon. Gentlemen who may fancy there is really nothing in the question to consider it carefully, because in all probability this will not be the last occasion of its being brought before us.

          In 1861 there had been very naturally a good deal of talk in the British North American Provinces as to the propriety of a Confedetion of the colonies, and in that year the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia passed a Resolution of a general character, which referred to a general or partial Confederation or union of the maritime Provinces, and which appointed delegates to consider the question, and to correspond with others who might be concerned in it.

          In 1862 certain delegates were appointed to meet

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

the Executive Council of Canada, and another deputation from New Brunswick at Quebec.  The whole matter was discussed and the determination come to by the conference was that the consideration of the question was premature, and that, until the intercolonial railway was made, and until the colonies were brought into that kind of amalgamation which would arise from the general establishment of free trade among them, nothing could be done, and therefore no further steps were taken by that conference.

          The next year a General Election occurred, but it is not asserted by anyone that the question of Confederation was referred to the decision of the constituencies.  Two important questions were referred to them – one was that of retrenchment, some thinking that the Government had been very expensive; the other was a proposed limitation of the franchise.

          The result of the election was a change of Government – a result that sometimes follows a General Election in this country – and a Minister of great authority being deposed, a Minister who has since had great authority – namely, Dr. Tupper – ascended the Nova Scotian ministerial throne.

          In 1864, soon after Dr. Tupper came to the Premiership, the new Parliament met, and went into the question of Confederation, appointing delegates to consider the propriety of a union between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island; but I believe that on no occasion has Nova Scotia shown any disposition to unite in any Confederation from which New Brunswick and Prince Edward's Island were excluded.

          In the same year there was what is called a "deadlock" in the administration of affairs in Canada.

          The House will bear in mind that for many years past it is not Nova Scotia that has troubled the English Parliament and Government, but any difficulty in connection with the British North American provinces has arisen from embarrassments in Canada.  The dead-lock in Canada was such that men looked across the table at each other in the House of Assembly, and asked how things were to go on.

          It was ultimately agreed that there should be a coalition; that men who had fought violently in Parliament for years before should form a coalition Government, and that its policy should he to combine all the Provinces in a Federal union; or, if that was impracticable, to apply Federal principles to Canada alone, by forming a central Parliament, in which representation should be based upon population,

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

which would give dominance to Upper Canada, and so in all probability get rid of a dead-lock.

          This was the means by which they proposed to extricate themselves from the embarrassment in which they were placed, and to set their governmental carriage running on its four wheels again.

          The delegates who had been appointed to consider the desirableness of a union of the maritime Provinces – Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island – met, in August 1864, at Charlottetown, the capital of Prince Edward's Island, and they discussed the question for some time; but whilst so doing they were interrupted by the advent of a powerful delegation from Canada, the Canadian politicians being afraid that the maritime Provinces would get up a more limited Federation of their own.

          The result was, that these gentlemen having no increased authority from the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, whatever they had from New Brunswick or Prince Edward's Island, some delay took place, and the delegates met again in Quebec, in October 1864, the result of their deliberations being the formation of what was known as the Quebec scheme, and which really formed the basis of the Bill which the Parliament passed here last year.

          The delegates from Nova Scotia and from the other Provinces did not agree to the Confederation.  There is no proof that Nova Scotia has ever in any way countenanced a Confederation in which all the maritime Provinces should not be included.

          Bear in mind that up to this moment the policy of complete Confederation was entirely Canadian.  It was not Nova Scotian – it was not even Imperial.  Judging from the despatches of the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), the Colonial Office looked at it with great shyness, and probably did not think it was in a position to give immediate and distinct sanction to it.

          When this scheme became known in Nova Scotia, there arose a spontaneous excitement on the part of the whole people; meetings were held almost everywhere; petitions in great numbers numerously signed were presented to the House, objecting to the scheme; and objecting – as they have done all along – that anything should be done which was not referred to the constituencies at the elections.

          The Nova Scotian House met in February 1865, and in his opening speech the Governor referred to the Quebec scheme, promising to bring the question before the House; but he did not do so because it

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

was felt that the opinion in Nova Scotia was so entirely against it that it would be in vain to ask the support of the House of Assembly for the scheme that had been contrived and developed at Quebec.

          The House did, however, in fact revive, not this scheme, but the smaller scheme of a Confederation of the maritime Provinces, to which the Nova Scotians had all along been greatly attached, though they do not appear to have in the least favoured a scheme to submerge them, as it were, in the Canadian power.  They revived the Resolution of 1864, which referred only to the Confederation of the maritime Provinces; and to show how determined the House was to do nothing more than that, it actually rejected the Preamble to the Resolutions, which seemed to give some kind of semblance to the idea that under some circumstances they would consent to union with Canada.

          They thus showed in a very remarkable manner how watchful they were that they should not be committed to a general Confederation in which Canada was included with them.

          In the Session of 1865 there were 183 petitions, signed by more than 15,000 persons, presented to the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, complaining of any attempt whatsoever to deal with the question of Confederation until it had been referred for the opinion of the people to be constitutionally expressed at a General Election.  There were 183 petitions against any such proceeding, and only one solitary petition – the number of names I have not found stated in the petition – in favour of Confederation.

          Well, now we come to the Session of 1866.  The House met in February.  There was not a single word in the Governor's speech on the question of Confederation.

          If it had been referred to the constituencies – if the people of Nova Scotia were wishing for it – if it was for its consideration Parliament had been assembled, I think we should have had something about it in the Governor's speech.  The question had been considered as one virtually settled – the minds of the people of Nova Scotia had been so far drawn from it that the whole matter was supposed to be at an end.

          What happened two months after?  This extraordinary thing – the First Minister of Nova Scotia, Dr. Tupper, brought in a Resolution that a scheme of Confederation should be proceeded with, and delegates were appointed to arrange the scheme.

          No time was given for public meetings, petitions, or demonstrations of public opinion, and, in fact, the whole proceeding was carried

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

on with an indecent haste, such as I should think there is no example of in a Legislative Assembly that was about, contrary to the will of its constituents, to subvert and overthrow its own power.

          The Session before there was no majority for doing anything; but in the Session of 1866 there was a majority for this proceeding.

          How it was obtained I know not; but there are modes of dealing with Oppositions, as we have had any number of times in this House, by which a minority sometimes becomes a majority.

          Dr. Tupper is a man of whom I will say nothing that is disrespectful.  He is a man, I should say, of rather a subtle intellect, and he has what is an admirable thing in a Prime Minister – a persuasive tongue; and, what is more, he appears to me to have an ambition which is not willing to be confined within the comparatively narrow limits of the Province of Nova Scotia; and, somehow or other, Dr. Tupper managed to convert the minority of the year before into the majority of the year 1866, and succeeded in having this Resolution passed and these delegates appointed.

          Then these delegates came to England, where they were joined by those of Canada and New Brunswick, Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland taking no part in the matter, and sending no delegates; so that, happily or unhappily as the case may turn out – for I am not arguing for or against Confederation as a principle – their legislation did not subvert their Constitution, and they are free as they were before.

          But there came to England whilst this question was under discussion a counter delegation sent by the people – not the Assembly – of Nova Scotia.

          The delegates from the people brought a petition signed, not in favour of Confederation, by 31,000 male inhabitants of Nova Scotia, protesting against the Imperial Parliament giving its assistance to the subversion of the Constitution of Nova Scotia and to uniting that colony to Canada, and till the people should have had an opportunity of declaring their opinion upon that proposal at the General Elections in the Colony.

          In the month of March last year I protested against the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies proceeding with the Bill, telling him that in three months, according to the ordinary custom of the colony, there would be a General Election, and this question would then be referred to the whole of the constituencies affected by it.

          But the right hon. Gentleman was very sharp on me, and thought I was stepping

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

in and interfering with a great transaction of his.

          I pointed out that in reference to English corporations this House does not put men within the circuit of a municipality until you have ascertained what is the opinion of those who are to be included within it; but here is a whole colony of 400,000 persons – a colony that I venture to say is, for its numbers, the noblest colony probably that England has; a colony that has given us less trouble; a colony having a people of most remarkable qualities; and yet they are handed over to this new Confederation not only without their consent, but absolutely in the teeth of their protestations against it.

          To show the House that I am not now taking up the question merely for the purpose of stimulating any difficulty that may have arisen, or of making this question embarrassing to the Government, I will state some few of the things I said when I spoke on the subject last year.

          I said that I had never before known any measure affecting any considerable part of the population hurried through Parliament with the unseemly haste which we witnessed last year; and I referred to the fact that two colonies were left out, and I said I presumed they were left out because it was quite clear that they did not want to come in.

          The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) interrupted me, and said: "I am glad I can inform the hon. Gentleman that they are – one of them at least – on the point of coming in."  I have not heard of their coming in, but they were left out because they did not wish to come in, and that is all I propose with regard to the colony of Nova Scotia.

          Further, I described what had been done with that petition of 31,000 signatures; and I asked the House not to bind Nova Scotia until the opinion of the constituency of that colony had been ascertained, which would have been within a few months of the time at which I was speaking.  I said further –

“If, at a time like this, when you are proposing a union which we all hope is to last for ever, you create a little sore it will in all probability become a great sore in a short time, and it may be that the intentions of Parliament will be almost entirely frustrated by the haste with which this measure is being pushed forward.”
– [3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1182.]

          The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the case as one of great exigency, and I pointed out that if we had the feeling of the people of Nova Scotia with us we might go forward in the hope that the transaction would be advantageous to the colony and honourable to the mother-country.

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

The petition to which I have referred was disregarded; the opinions of 31,000 persons were considered not nearly so important as the representations of Dr. Tupper and his friends; my warning with regard to the little sore was considered of no use and not in the slightest degree judicious; and the Bill, being pushed forward, was passed.

          Now there came on in September, later than usual, a General Election for the Province of Nova Scotia, and it was no longer possible to keep the subject from discussion and decision by the constituencies.  The result was, that of the thirty-eight Members returned to the local Nova Scotian Parliament meeting at Halifax, only two were returned in favour of Confederation, and of the nineteen sent to represent the Province in the Parliament meeting at Ottawa, only two were returned in favour of Confederation, and one of these has, I believe, given his assent to the petition I have presented to the House.

          Thus it will be seen that of fifty-seven Members, only three are in favour of the Bill which was passed with so much haste and so much unstatesmanlike obstinacy last year.

          The House is landed in this difficulty, that you have been professing to confer a great benefit on your colony – you did it without their consent, and that colony turns upon you, and asks you to take back the gift.

          The House should bear in mind, when this election took place there were not wanting those means by which Government and officials interfere with the freedom of elections.  It was said more than once by persons in authority, that if the people of Nova Scotia voted against the Confederation it would be displeasing to the Queen.

          The Colonial Office also exercised its authority.  The Governor of the colony at the time exercised all the influence he could bring to bear on the matter and the case.  The military gentlemen who lived outside barracks, and who never before voted at elections, came forward and voted, and brought all the force of their opinion, example, and suffrage in support of what they supposed was the intention of the Government at home and of the colony.

          And the Canadian officials, they were also to exercise whatever influence they possessed.  Well, all this was done, and we know how it is done here, and we can guess how it is done in Nova Scotia.

          But, notwithstanding all this battery and machining against the popular cause, it failed, and failed completely, as I have shown.  The House

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

elected last September met in February of this year, and immediately turned their attention to the question of the destruction of their Constitution and their forced union with Canada; and they sent delegates to England to ask for the restoration of the Constitution as it existed previously to the passing of the British North American Confederation Act, and they instructed their delegates they were not to accept any alteration or amendment of that Act.

          I do not say this for the purpose of saying I agree with or approve of it, or that I think it absolutely necessary for them to stand by those words.

          I state it for the sake of showing what at the present moment is the unanimous judgment of the whole local Legislature of Nova Scotia.  In the eighteen counties of the colony great public meetings were held, and one was held in Halifax, the capital city, and under the eye of the Government. They say the Act of Union has no claim upon the loyalty of the people of Nova Scotia, and that any obedience to it is a matter of coercion, and not given by a free people.

          There are 48,000 electors in Nova Scotia, and I think only 13,000 voted for the Confederation candidates, with all the influence that could be brought to bear upon them.  But in some counties there was no control; in others, the majorities were so great and the minorities so small that the poll was over at a very early hour of the day, and a great number of the electors did not vote.

          I state this in order to show that the number of electors who voted on the occasion ought not to be regarded in a consideration of this question.

          I must refer once more to the speech of the Earl of Carnarvon. I say it expresses a fear of public opinion in Nova Scotia, and a consciousness that he was taking a course, in moving the second reading of the Bill, which had not the sanction of the people of the colony.

          If that be so I put it to the House whether it is not a question of more than ordinary seriousness, and whether the proposition I make for an inquiry – that a Commission should be sent out – is not a rational and statesmanlike proposition?

          If the House or the Government be disposed to disregard the question, then I assure them it is understood to be a serious question in Canada; and that, although Dr. Tupper is anxious the Confederation should work well, and that all the colonies should adopt it, the present aspect of affairs in Nova Scotia is perilous.  In Canada, I am told, the Canadian oath

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

has been altered, because it will not be taken by the people of Nova Scotia.  They were required to take an oath that they would defend their dominions.  The people of Nova Scotia were not prepared to take the oath, and it was therefore altered.

          More than that, I believe the Nova Scotia Militia will not be called out for drill this year, because it is felt that the people of Nova Scotia are unwilling to do anything that will put them into action with, or independence upon, or in submission to the Government of Canada.

          The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) will tell the House – I wish I could say what he will doubtless say – that the whole thing will blow over.  Well, some things do blow over; some do not: and if they do, it is only with a very rough blast.

          It is not a very statesmanlike conclusion, after last year committing a great error or wrong, to sit down and refuse to inquire into it, or remedy it, and say it is a momentary passion, and will blow over, and that the opposition will soon be at an end.  You have bound them together, and you say there is no remedy in this Parliament which did them the injustice.  You tell them, if a wrong has been done, they must go to Canada and get it remedied.  If they go to the Parliament of Ottawa they would tell them by a majority of 6 to 1 they could nothing for them.  They would say, "You are part of the Confederation, and if any wrong has been done you must go to the Parliament in London."

          I beg to tell the House that if that is the principle on which we are to net – to allow them to go to Canada for a remedy, and if we undertake to interfere in no way in the matter, and withdraw the troops from Nova Scotia, and leave Nova Scotia and Canada to settle the matter, it will he settled very easily, or perhaps I should say without much difficulty.  Canada cannot coerce Nova Scotia.  Nova Scotia would know that she cannot be coerced; and therefore either she would secede and revert to her ancient Constitution, which she has by no means forgotten, or Canada would immediately appoint a Commission to inquire into the whole matter, and to offer to Nova Scotia such amendments of the Act, and such changes or concessions in the mode of Confederation, as Nova Scotia might – I do not say it is likely she would – but such as she might ultimately be willing to accept.

          There is another point which the House should bear in mind – that Nova Scotia is next to New

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

Brunswick, and although New Brunswick has, by her General Election, confirmed the proposition of Confederation, yet there is a growing feeling in New Brunswick, since the Canadian Parliament met, that the Confederation is not a good thing for them.  Every day, I believe, a stronger sympathy with Nova Scotia is being created.  The other day, in the city of St. John, the principal mercantile city of New Brunswick, a candidate strong against Confederation was returned, and so strong was the party supporting him that no candidate in favour of Confederation could be brought forward to oppose him.

          I venture to say, if the Government refuse any inquiry into this matter, they will only add to the folly of their haste of last year the greater folly of a more perilous obstinacy this year.  It is not a safe course that the Government is going to pursue, if I have rightly heard what is in their mind.  It is said that the right hon. Gentleman and the Duke of Buckingham, his Chief at the Colonial Office, propose that by and-by a new Governor General shall be sent to Canada; that the matter shall then be inquired into; that he shall try to ascertain the grounds of discord, stopping a day or so at Halifax; and that, when he arrives at Ottawa, he shall propose something to reconcile Nova Scotia to the Government of Canada.

          I believe that any such inquiry will be utterly futile.  The Governor General going out there will not be the most impartial man to consider the question; and when he gets to Ottawa, and is there surrounded by his Ministers in the Canadian Parliament, who will all be on the other side, it is quite clear he will be in a position of the greatest difficulty.

          And I think a man must be sanguine beyond what is wise to suppose that any good could arise from a proceeding like that.  I think that we have committed a certain wrong.  We have done it through error, or in haste; and it is very unstatesmanlike to shut the door of Parliament against the prayer of the petitioners, which may be said to represent nearly, if not quite, half the population of Nova Scotia.

          I think the sending out of a Commission, or Commissioners, would be more considerate to the colony Such Commission might take into view all of the circumstances of the case; and it would be more soothing to the 300,000 or 400,000 inhabitants who are dissatisfied with the course taken last year.

          Our colonial experience has not been very

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

satisfactory to us in some things.  We fancy that people 3,000 or 4,000 miles off are as tractable or as easily governed as people in a neighbouring colony.  It is quite a mistake.  They have ideas which Englishmen have not.  The tie which binds them to this House, though strong, is very much less strong than the ties which bind our English counties to the sovereignty of this House.

          It is only about 100 years ago that the wise men in this House proposed in a single Session to pass three coercive Acts against the North American colonies.  I have no doubt that there were many men in those days who stood up to object to those Acts, and were deemed fools or something worse for their pains.  And yet their folly turned out the greatest wisdom, and the almost unanimous wisdom of Parliament turned out to be the greatest folly; and this is now pointed at by every historian as one of the most remarkable transactions of unwisdom that ever occurred in the English Parliament.

          It is not now a question of mere stamps, or of 3d. or 6d. a pound on tea.  It is a question of the absolute subversion and abolition of an ancient, honoured, and valued Constitution.  I consider it quite likely that the people of Nova Scotia, who have been free, happy, independent, and prosperous for so long a time, may have just as strong a love for the Constitution of their comparatively small population, as any of us may have for the Constitution under which we live.

          The noble Lord who moved the second reading of the Bill in the other House said we were now laying the foundation of a great State.  Last year we all hoped so.  I hoped so myself although I confess I had not much faith in it.  But to build up a great State by making a victim of this colony, and to make a victim of this colony in order to meet certain difficulties in Canada or in the Colonial Office, does not appear to me to be wise; and to endeavour to build up a great State from those discordant materials, partly from fear, and partly from jealousy of the United States, is a far more objectionable feature in the matter.

          I know very well there is an idea that this union with Canada is one mode of preventing the North American colonies from annexation to the United States.  The motive is hardly wise, and in the mode of accomplishing it there is no wisdom whatever; for you are attempting now to build a great State on a foundation which shakes under you the very moment you are beginning to

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

build; and when you passed your Bill of Federation last year for the foundation of a great State, you were putting together materials which were not in accord, and out of which the moment they were brought together would arise something like we have now seen.

          We know what the official view of things is.  It, we generally find, is to do nothing; and it goes on doing nothing until the case gets so bad that nothing can be done.  And that is precisely what the Colonial Office tonight will ask the House of Commons to do in this matter.  It would not do anything last year but contradict me when I said the Nova Scotians were against that Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman was positive and rather insolent, and thought I was meddling where I did not understand it.  And now, when I ask him to inquire, he will tell the House that inquiry would only make the difficulties greater, and would hear the appearance of a concession which the House does not intend to make.

          Now, I hope the House and the Colonial Office will beware of saying anything like that.  You do not know yet that you will not have to make concession.  And therefore I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to his Colleagues not to agree to any statement like that, because next year we may look upon a state of things far less palatable than those of today.

          What is the difficulty of inquiry?  There have been Commissions of Inquiry before of an important character, and there may be one now.  The result would be this – that all the Canadian people would say – "Well, the English Parliament have behaved to us, after all, in a certain degree of moderation and reasonableness.  What they did was through misapprehension, and when we represented it to them they were ready to inquire.  They have sent out a Commission, and we will go fairly into the question with them, and we will see if the difficult question can be adjusted."

          Now, there are several things which could be done.  There could be a Confederation of all the Provinces, as at present proposed, but with certain modifications, and this might possibly meet the views of the Nova Scotians; there might be a Confederation of the maritime Provinces only, which would be probably most likely to meet the views of the Nova Scotians; or you might take the alternative scheme proposed by the Canadian Executive Government – apply the Federal principle to the two Canadas with a central Parliament.

          So that, after

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

all, there are two ways out of this difficulty, and the proper way would be discovered by a Commission sent to Nova Scotia to inquire into it.

          But whatever you do, I say to have no inquiry, but to stand on the Bill passed last Session – to shut the door of the House in the face of that new colony – would be one of those acts, not of statesmanship, but of madness, which statesmen and Ministers ought on all occasions to avoid.  If you shut the door of hope, what will be the effect upon the minds of this population who are so agitated?  They will feel that they are made the victims of Canadian ambition and of Imperial policy in which they do not in the least sympathize.

          I am afraid, Sir, to treat this question in one part of it, because it will lead me to say, though it will be false in detail, what will be likely to increase the difficulty I point out.

          If you propose a union at all hazards, the danger to my mind is apparent.  From the moment that resolution reaches Nova Scotia there will be created a deeper hostility to Canada.  I do not know why it is that the smaller Provinces have no love of Canada.  They do not believe in her political system.  They have no faith in the wisdom and morality of her statesmen.  They go there with nineteen Members to a House of 180 Members, and they think they will be lost when they get there, and that their own complete government will be gone.  They are not placed under the Imperial Parliament, but under what is only a Colonial Government, in which they have no faith and for which they have no love.

          I say therefore if you turn them from this House, not only without remedy, but without inquiry, you will create a deeper hostility to Canada.  You will create also a growing estrangement from England, and what is perhaps dreaded by some more than anything else, you will create and increase the sympathy with the neighbouring New England States of North America.

          When men are irritated, as the Nova Scotians are now irritated, and when nothing is done to soothe the irritation – when you will not inquire – when you will not remedy – when you will not listen – it takes a very little thing indeed where a colony is 3,000 or 4,000 miles away from the mother country, to turn its eyes in the direction of the government of a great country – of its own race and with institutions as free – and probably willing, when the colonies are willing, to receive them within its ample borders.

          This is what I am afraid may happen.  Your scheme must break down if the Nova Scotians resolve they will not

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

have it, It is impossible for you to coerce them.  I do not think there is the temper in the English House of Commons, nor amongst Englishmen in the United Kingdom, that would allow the Government by force to coerce the population of Nova Scotia into the subversion of her very government, and into annexation with Canada.

          But if you are not prepared to coerce, then I say the proper course for the Government to take – and I never gave any Government an opinion with more conscientious belief in its reasonableness and its propriety – the course which the Government should take is to select one or two men of high position and character in this country, who would go and give two or three months to this question this autumn, to examine into the whole matter in Nova Scotia.  They would also see something of the state of public opinion in Canada; because they would necessarily see the Governors and the authorities there, and possibly – probably – I will not say certainly – they may propose some plan which would relieve the colonies from this difficulty, and would show the House of Commons and the Government here a path out of a difficulty which I think every day we tread in it becomes more difficult, and which may land us in disasters which are fearful to contemplate.

          The other day the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government met the deputation upon Ireland.  It was not upon this question – it was upon a question which has been much discussed in the House during the present Session – and he made an observation to them which would have been very wise under certain circumstances, but, as it was not true, it was not very wise under the circumstances in which it was spoken.  He made this observation.  He said – "we have secured this for the people of this country, that the Constitution shall not be subverted without an appeal to them."

          But you have subverted the Constitution of Nova Scotia without any appeal to the people of Nova Scotia.  You did it from what I think an exaggerated statement of persons connected with the then Government of Nova Scotia, and the House did on the representation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who certainly was very much more sanguine than he had any right to be.

          You have done to the people of Nova Scotia what I maintain is one of the greatest wrongs that despotism in any form can do to any people.  You have power to maintain it so long as Nova Scotia has no assistance from outside its own borders.  But there is no

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

statesman in England who will venture to bring about the shedding of one drop of blood upon that Continent.

          No man in this House more entirely hopes that such a thing is absolutely impossible than I do.  Yet these questions may be driven to a point where difficulties will arise which the English Parliament will be utterly unable to settle.  And whilst we have been endeavouring to bring about important arrangements for the Federation of our fellow-subjects in the British North American Colonies, we may possibly have been taking the step that will thrust them into the United States.

          Only the other day I met an Englishman who has lived in the United States, and who is familiar with everything there, and he asked me whether I thought the Government intended to refuse my claim.  I said, "I think they do.  They generally refuse everything, and I understand they are going to refuse this."  "Well," he said, "I am very glad to hear that;" which rather struck me with surprise, and, indeed, with pain; and I said, "Why are you glad?"  He said, "I believe nothing can prevent the absorption of these colonies within the Republic of the United States;" and he added "There is no step the Government could take so certain to hasten it as to object to your Motion and refuse the Commission of Inquiry which you propose."

          Now, Sir, I cannot say what he says, because I am not glad of it – I regret it, and regret it sincerely, because I think nothing could be more unfortunate for these colonies and this country than that we should do anything to hasten the accession of these colonies to the United States.

          Our duty is, so far as we can in legislating for them and in governing for them, to do it all freely, honourably, and generously to them, with their consent in every step; and to the last moment that these colonies shall be dependent on the British Crown, that every person within them shall feel that that Crown has not been a Crown of tyranny, but the Crown of just government to them.

          Now, Sir, I have submitted this case.  I do not know that it is necessary to say anything more about it.  I submit it as I see it, and as it commends itself to my view.  It is a case not for opposition nor for obstinacy.  It is a case which calls for statesmanship and for justice.  Last year the House legislated in error and in the dark.  Tonight I hope, after the simple narrative I have given of these transactions, it can never be said that the House can act otherwise than in the broad light of day with respect to this question.  I

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

advised the right hon. Gentleman last year, as he knows, not to be precipitate with that Bill.  If he had taken my advice this difficulty would not have occurred.  The right hon. Gentleman made a mistake.  He placed too much reliance on evidence which was not trustworthy.

          Now, in this matter I have no party or personal interest to serve.  We ought all to be alike anxious that what is just and what is generous should be done to the colony of Nova Scotia, and that fair inquiry should be made into the grievances of which complaint is made.  And if the right hon. Gentleman refuses this course, and if difficulties should come of it, the responsibility must rest with the right hon. Gentleman and with his Colleagues; not with me.

          The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.


          MR. BAXTER, in seconding the Motion, expressed a hope that it would be acceded to by the Government.  He believed that if a petition so influentially signed and so effectually worded as that presented by his hon.  Friend were entirely disregarded by the Imperial Parliament, consequences must ensue most humiliating and disastrous to this great Empire.

          If his hon. Friend had proposed that the House should adopt any Resolution or affirm any measure to carry out the views of the delegates of Nova Scotia, then he could understand why the House and Her Majesty's Government should feel great hesitation in doing anything of the sort.  He believed that any Gentleman who had carefully looked at the Papers that had been circulated with regard to this question must admit that the delegates from Nova Scotia bad made out a very strong case.

          But his hon. Friend did not ask the House to repeal the Union Act nor to pronounce any opinion on any branch of the subject; all that he asked for was, that having regard to the universal dissatisfaction which prevailed in Nova Scotia, there should be an inquiry into the cause of that dissatisfaction, with a view to its removal.

          He could scarcely conceive that this House would refuse so reasonable a request, whatever view they might take of the Confederation of Canada.  His hon. Friend had, perhaps, seen the delegates from Nova Scotia; but he (Mr. Baxter) stood in a totally different position.  He had not had any communication with those delegates, either direct or indirect.

          But he had taken the trouble of making inquiry into this matter.  He received the other day from a friend long resident in the colony, a gentleman in business at Halifax, and

(Continued on next page)



Note to the reader: At the time,
Hansard often recorded proceedings
in the third person.


Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

having no connection with the party politics of the colony, a letter which fully confirmed the statements made by the delegates sent over by Nova Scotia, In that letter it was stated that the whole population of the Province was opposed to the union; that the Imperial Government had been entirely deceived as to the feeling of the Nova Scotians themselves; and that the people would resist the change.  It should not be said that, in consequence of our legislation, we had driven a loyal and influential State to take a step of that sort.

          The letter went on to say that Nova Scotia had already experienced the disastrous effects of the union in the increase of the duties imposed upon most commodities.

          The Nova Scotians ridiculed, too, the idea, of our giving an Imperial guarantee in connection with the construction of an intercolonial railway, on the ground that they were perfectly able and willing to raise the money themselves.

          The colony was one which had been loyal and true, and the people complained that the Act had been passed without seeking their opinion upon it.  The people of the colony deserved the utmost consideration at the hands of the Imperial Parliament, and he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham, that if the House took the strong stop of refusing any inquiry into the case, the people of Nova Scotia might come to the conclusion that the present generation of Englishmen had forgotten the lesson of the American War of Independence.

          He had much pleasure in seconding the Motion

Motion made, and Question proposed, “That this House is informed, by a Petition presented on the 15th day of May last, signed by 36 out of 38 Members of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, and by 16 out of 19 Members elected by that Colony to the House of Commons at Ottawa, that great dissatisfaction prevails in Nova Scotia with the Act passed in the last Session of Parliament, intituled 'An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick:' And that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission or Commissioners to proceed to Nova Scotia for the purpose of examining into the causes of the alleged discontent, with a view to their consideration and removal.”
– (Mr. Bright)


          MR. ADDERLEY said, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) could not be regarded as raising in any way a party question, because both sides of the House were equally interested in this great Confederation of the North American Provinces obtaining a successful start, and were equally interested in the

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

Act of last Session, which was passed almost unanimously.

          But, although the question raised was not a party question, it was one of the gravest importance, and one that ought not to be judged by outside appearance, but by the gravest and most thorough consideration of the intrinsic merits of the case.

          The question raised by the Motion before the House was whether the Province of Nova Scotia was so wrongly, and in the dark, drawn into this union by the Imperial Act of last Session that it became this Mouse to ask the Queen to issue a Royal Commission of Inquiry on the spot, undertaking on the part of this country a most questionable interference with the local affairs of North America.

          The proposition was startling and obviously dangerous, and nothing but the strongest reasons should induce the House to assent to it.

          Great dissatisfaction undoubtedly had been recently shown in the Province of Nova Scotia with the union of the North American Provinces.  That dissatisfaction cannot be disputed, and he had no doubt that the House would deeply regret with him that it should exist.  He could only say that Her Majesty's Government regretted the existence of that dissatisfaction as strongly as any one.

          But this proposition for a Commission from this country to inquire into it was, notwithstanding, so unpromising a remedy that it became the House to consider the allegations on which it was based, and the nature of the recommendation which they were asked to agree to.  He would endeavour, in the first place, briefly to show that those allegations were wholly erroneous, and without foundation; secondly, that if even the allegations which had been made were true, the recommendation of the hon. Member was about the most insane thing the House could agree to; and thirdly, that the alarm and discontent in Nova Scotia could be much better met, and were rapidly being met, by a totally different process.

          The allegations were that Nova Scotia had been entrapped into this union by surprise, and that this House was induced to sanction the Act by a fraud practised upon it.  The truth of these allegations he entirely denied.  Parliament, in passing the Act of Union, simply put Ministerially into the form of an Imperial statute, Resolutions which had been passed by the Provinces themselves.

          The subject of union had been agitated for no less than fourteen years in the Provinces, and in no instance had this country done more than accept the propositions made by the Provinces to it, and offered to do its part in carrying

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

out their wishes.  When propositions were first made the Duke of Newcastle was Colonial Secretary, and he received them very cautiously, saying – "If you really want this union, make it clear to us, and we will entertain your proposition."  When a similar proposition was made to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cardwell) he received it with similar caution, saying – "Confer with your colonial Legislatures and let us know the conclusion at which they arrive upon the subject."

          In both instances the Colonial Secretaries of State, be far from initiating propositions of union received those made to them most cautiously.  He did not mean to say that the Government might not have been perfectly justified if they had treated the subject less scrupulously.

          Far be it from him to say this country was not concerned and deeply interested in this Confederation.  The British taxpayer who maintained 12,000 British troops for the defence of North America was certainly interested in consolidating the strength and developing the resources of his fellow-subjects.  It was unnecessary to raise the question whether this country could not have instituted this Confederation even without the consent of the Provinces.

          But this country always felt that it was better that we should not initiate, still less urge, such a union, but that we should rather wait upon the inclination of the Provinces.  His object was to show the House, by mere Statement of facts, that this proposition came from the Provinces themselves, and that history, without any argument, would dissipate to the winds the allegation either that Nova Scotia was taken by surprise, or that this House had been in any way imposed upon.

          Lord Durham, in 1838, reported that deputies from Halifax urged the necessity of a general union of the Provinces as the most likely measure to preserve their connection with the British Crown.

          The proposal for union was first made by the Leaders of the two opposite parties in Nova Scotia in 1854, Mr. Howe being one of them; and a proposal to that effect was made to this country by the then Colonial Government.

          In 1857 the proposition was renewed at the instance of the other party, and delegates were sent to this country upon the subject.

          The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) had mystified himself by the distinctions drawn by those who had placed in his hands the case for Nova Scotia between the various propositions made at different times for different kinds of union – Legislative union, Federal union, and union by actual representation

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

in that House.  The proposition for a union of some kind of all the North American Provinces had been a leading topic in Nova Scotia for fourteen years, and was a topic of common consent between the opposite parties in that Province.

          In 1861 a unanimous Resolution of the Nova Scotian Parliament in its favour stated that the subject had been mooted from time to time and should be sealed – this subject which in 1868 was said to take that Province by surprise.

          The election of 1863, instead of supporting the case of the hon. Gentleman, went really decisively the other way.  The hon. Gentleman said the topic of Confederation was not made a party cry at that election, and seemed to think that that was a point in his favour; but the fact of the subject not having been made a party cry was a convincing proof that no feeling against the proposition existed.  Had such a feeling existed the question undoubtedly would have been made a party cry, and would have been a chief topic at the hustings.

          The fact was that all parties were then agreed upon the subject; and therefore nobody touched the question at that election.

          In 1864 the proposition was again brought forward, and a Resolution was passed by the new Parliament approving it.  The hon. Member said that when the delegates met at Charlottetown, Canada came in unexpectedly.  All he could say in reply to that statement was, that Canada asked to be invited, and was invited to send delegates to the meeting, and therefore it could scarcely be said that the other Provinces were taken by surprise by her taking part in those proceedings.

          When the Conference was adjourned to Quebec, in 1864, Resolutions were passed which were the ipsissima verba of the Imperial Act which was passed last year.

          Before these Resolutions were presented to the Legislature of New Brunswick, an election had taken place in that Province which returned an Assembly adverse to the union.  But in the course of the very next spring they changed their view, and were as strongly in favour of the union as they had at first been against it.

          That change of opinion appeared to be incomprehensible to the hon. Gentleman.  That change of opinion, however, was the rapid first-fruits of mature consideration on the part of the Legislature of that Province.

          A similar change may result from Nova Scotia's reflection.  It was not until after Resolutions in favour of the union had been unanimously agreed to by all the Legislatures of the interested Provinces that the Act of last Session was passed by the Imperial

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

Parliament.

          He would not waste the time of the House further in endeavouring to show that the Nova Scotians were not taken by surprise by the Act of last Session; but the hon. Gentleman, departing from that ground which, he thought, he must have found a somewhat weak one on which to take his stand, appealed from the Legislatures of the Provinces to the people.  It was true he admitted that the Legislatures were in favour of the union; but then he contended that the Nova Scotian Legislature did not faithfully represent the inhabitants at large.

          Now, what he had already said about the election of 1863 fully disposed, in his opinion, of the hon Gentleman's argument on that point; for all parties at that election were so unanimous on the long-mooted question of Confederation that it was not even raised on the hustings; and the Assembly then returned passed immediate Resolutions in its favour.  But he would deal with the hon.  Gentleman's proposition of an appeal from representatives to the people on such a question on grounds of abstract principle.  The hon. Gentleman had quoted the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government as having laid down the principle that an existing Legislature was not to deal with a great constitutional change without an appeal to the people.  But had hot the hon.  Gentleman himself, he would ask, repudiated that principle in the debate on the Irish Church this very Session?  [Mr. BRIGHT dissented.] He was glad the hon. Member thought the Irish Church could not be abolished by this Parliament.

          He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, who he was certain had repudiated that principle in reference to the Irish Church; for he had quoted a speech of Mr. Pitt on the Union with Ireland, in which that statesman said that a principle so democratic as that representatives could not deal with constitutional changes without special reference to their constituents struck at the root of representative government.  The Irish Union was a precedent against the hon. Member for Birmingham.  The Scotch Union was another precedent against him.  Commissioners in that case were appointed on both sides to draw up terms which were enacted without an appeal to the people.

          Again, in the case of the Canadian Union in 1842 an appeal to the people was proposed and rejected; but, perhaps, the best precedent was that which was furnished by Mr. Howe himself, who in 1863 passed a Nova Scotian Reform Bill, reducing the constituencies of Nova Scotia by one-third,

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

without ever deeming it necessary that an appeal to the people should be made.  On the contrary, the change occurred immediately after his election, and he repudiated the notion of appealing to the people even on the subject of their extensive disfranchisement.

          And he must remind the hon. Member for Birmingham that in making the appeal which he now so strongly advocates he was asking for an appeal from a larger to a smaller constituency – to a constituency which since 1863 had been diminished by one-third.

          And when the hon. Gentleman talked of the old Constitution of Nova Scotia, and said that if care were not taken the people of that Province would violently resume that Constitution, he would beg him to remember that the old Constitution of Nova Scotia was simply, after all, the gift of the Crown.  The Lieutenant Governor was sent out from this country with a commission which authorized him to summon an Assembly.

          There was no charter for Nova Scotia and no foundation for a Constitution enjoying the advantages of that great Confederation in which they had now their share, which had a Government as free as our own, and a Parliament as powerful as the House of Commons to manage its own affairs.

          But then the hon. Gentleman laid stress upon the fact that in the recent elections in Nova Scotia since the union it had been triumphantly condemned.  Now, he disputed the statement that the union was condemned in those elections, and he had taken the best means to inform himself as to what had been the real expression of feeling at those elections.  Looking through a file of the Halifax Morning Chronicle, which was the organ of Mr. Howe, he found that the cry at the elections was not against the union generally, but that it had almost wholly reference to two things – the possible injury that might accrue to the interests of Nova Scotia from Confederation with the larger State of Canada, but still more was it directed against what was called the Tupper-Archibald party and their past misdeeds.

          It was certainly quite true that there was great alarm in Nova Scotia; but history furnished no instance in which a smaller State did not entertain some fear and jealousy in confederating with a larger State.  No man, for example, possessing a genius inferior to that of Washington could, he believed, have overcome the mutual jealousies he had to contend with before he effected the first Confederation of the United States, and it was not surprising that similar jealousy should prevail in the smaller States of our North

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

American Confederation.

          The hon. Gentleman would, however, find that the existence of a feeling at the recent elections in Nova Scotia against the union with Canada was by no means so conclusively established as he seemed to suppose; but that, upon the contrary, the people of that Province had for the most part made up their minds to give it a fair trial, the chief objects of abuse at the election being the Fishery Licence Act and that compulsory education tax for which Dr. Tupper enjoyed the credit and the blame.

          Mr. Howe, he saw by the Halifax Morning Chronicle, was in favour of giving a fair trial to the new Constitution, though he described the result of his electioneering as having been against it.  Mr. Annand, who declared for its repeal, was ousted from his seat; and Mr. Stewart Campbell, the leader of the opposition to the union in the Assembly, stated that he would accept the Act now that it was passed, and help to carry it out in the interests of the colony.

          These quotations from Mr. Howe's paper tended very much in his opinion to upset the general view which the hon. Gentleman had taken of the elections.  He might also observe that out of 48,000 electors only 23,000 had given their votes for what the hon. Gentleman would call the popular or anti-union party, so that though the elections went against the Government, not half the electors so voted.

          He thought he had now shown that the allegations which had been made by the hon. Gentleman were not well-founded, and he should in the next place proceed to contend that even if they were, his proposal for an Imperial Commission of Inquiry was about the worst which the House could adopt.  We had no business to inquire into the local arrangements of the North American Provinces.  By doing so we should be going back for some thirty years in colonial policy.  In 1839, when Lord Durham was sent out, the object was to redeem the North American colonies from evils which our interference had caused, and to allow them to manage their own affairs.  We had recognized self-government of the most ample kind in North America.

          If the hon. Member would place himself in the position of a member of the Confederation Parliament he would feel himself insulted by the proposal of a Commission to be sent out from this country to inquire into the policy of a representative Legislature of which he was a freely elected Member.

          Besides, let the House consider what the effect of such a course would be upon this country.  If we were to send out a Commission

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

of Inquiry into the constitutional arrangements of these Provinces, we should take upon ourselves the responsibility of their future government; we should be assuming the burden of their maintenance and perpetuating the responsibility of garrisoning the colonies with our troops.

          And then let the hon. Gentleman and let the House consider what the effect would be upon the influence and authority of the new Government if we were now to send out a Commission to inquire into its validity and possible change or disruption.  Just at this critical moment, when a new Government is called upon to conduct its affairs amidst the jealousies of the smaller partners, and those difficulties are still further aggravated by the drilling of Fenian conspirators openly along their frontier, and by projects and agitations for the annexation of these colonies to the United States, who deprecate Confederation because annexation is thereby rendered more difficult – at such a moment as this the hon. Gentleman says it would be a statesmanlike proceeding to send out a Commission which would paralyze the Executive and weaken the union, and encourage every disturbance and complaint.

          Just at the moment when, in the midst of difficulty, they had launched the new State on the enterprize of self-government the hon. Gentleman came forward with a proposition that would have no effect more surely than to expose it to every trial from within, and from without.  And that the hon. Gentleman called a statesmanlike proceeding.

          Then look at the effect upon the financial proceedings of the Confederation.  The credit of the Confederation was already pledged to many public works.  The National Debt of Nova Scotia was merged in the debt of the Confederation, in consequence of which the interest had been greatly reduced, and yet the hon. Gentleman proposed a Commission which would strike a blow at the very root of public credit, and reduce everything to a state of uncertainty, and attach suspicion to all future securities.

          Both, therefore, for the interests of the colonies themselves, and for the integrity of the Empire, and for the power of the new Government and its financial position – so far from this being a statesmanlike proposition, he thought it was little short of insanity to hang up the recent work of North American Confederation upon the issues of a Commission of Inquiry from this country.

          But, though that appeared to him to be the very last thing they ought to think of, he would tell the House that there were other modes of meeting the alarm which prevailed

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

in Nova Scotia, which he believed was already rapidly subsiding.  If, instead of sending out a Commission, they were to follow out the line which was indicated in a late despatch of the Secretary of State that this country would not place itself in the position of judge and dictator, but would use all friendly moral influences to assist the Provinces to settle mutual claims amongst each other, then they might hope to reap all the benefit and avoid all the mischief of interference.  This had already been done to a very great extent.

          So far from Nova Scotia having no influence, it appeared to have dominant influence, and at this moment to rule the policy of the Dominion Parliament.  Every Act that had yet been passed was in favour of Nova Scotia.  The first Act perhaps must be excepted – which he admitted, however, was a necessary one – to sweep away all the internal tariffs which were mutually destructive, and to pass an average tariff externally to other nations, which had the effect of raising the Customs' dues of Nova Scotia from 10 to 15 per cent.

          The fears of Federation felt by Nova Scotia were undue taxation, and a force put upon their local government; that their interests would be oppressed by the larger interests of Canada; and that the protective policy of Canada would over-ride the free trade policy of Nova Scotia.  But see what had been done.  One of the first acts of the Dominion Parliament was to take off the duties on flour, grain, and meal of all kinds.  It had also taken off the tonnage duties on lighthouses and placed the whole burden, which chiefly rested on the maritime Provinces, on the central revenue – proceedings all in favour of Nova Scotia.

          All the materials used in ships – cordage, canvas, iron, &c. – had had their duties abolished, and the duties on sugar had also been diminished in order to draw the West Indian trade to the ports of Nova Scotia.

          Therefore, he repeated that so far from Nova Scotia having but slight influence, the Parliament of the Dominion seemed to have studied its interests in a primary degree; and so far from the free trade policy of Nova Scotia being over-ridden, Customs' duties had been reduced, and revenue raised instead from direct taxation.

          In fact, the union of Nova Scotia with Canada seemed to have had the singular good effect of relaxing the protective policy of the latter country, and not of over-riding the free trade policy of the former.

          The Militia was alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, who said that it was not to be called out this year because Nova Scotia was disaffected.  It was not going to be called out because

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

there had not been yet time enough to put the new enactments relating to that force into operation.  By the new enactments Nova Scotia would be taxed much less on this as well as the other heads.  The Militia force was to be smaller in amount, but much better drilled than heretofore; and the taxation of Nova Scotia for a more efficient force would be just one-tenth of the amount she formerly paid.

          It was astonishing in how short a time a beginning had been made in the settlement of all these beneficial reforms; and the House must look beyond the mere first jealousies and apprehensions of smaller States, and consider the ultimate destiny of the whole Confederation.  Was it possible the hon. Gentleman could tell the House that he gravely considered it practicable for a small colony like Nova Scotia to remain permanently disunited from its neighbours?

          It was clear that one of three things must happen to Nova Scotia: either it must rest for ever – with what chance of success he would not now discuss – upon this country for its support and defence – and here he must remind the House that there were at the present moment 12,000 regular troops in the North American colonies supported out of the funds of the British taxpayer – or else they must, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to desire, annex themselves one by one to the United States; or the third and only remaining plan was what they were now doing, to consolidate their power by union among themselves.

          Would the hon. Gentleman like to see these colonies annexed to the United States?  The hon. Gentleman said that anxiety to prevent annexation was not a wise motive.  He knew the hon. Gentleman would argue, and with great justice, that it was unwise to try to prevent any people from doing that which their own feelings and interests dictated.  We certainly had no interests separate from those of Nova Scotia; nor, if we had, would we sacrifice hers.  But more than that, the hon. Gentleman had a feeling of preference for the United States, and he believed the hon. Gentleman had grand ideas of their destiny of extension under one Government from the Equator to the Pole.

          But whatever the hon. Gentleman might think desirable, the Provinces did not wish to lose our connection, and we did not wish to lose them; and he did not know why separation was to be forced upon this country and the Provinces against the wishes of both.  He knew the hon. Gentleman had a great liking for the institutions of the United States; for when the Bill of Confederation was under discussion last year the hon. Gentleman ran through its provisions;

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

and whatever clause was in accordance with the laws of the United States that in his view was good; whatever differed from them was bad.

          But there was no such feeling as this in the colonies.  So far from that, when the delegates met in Quebec one of the first Resolutions they drew up was that, whatever else their Constitution might be, it should be framed upon the model of the Constitution of Great Britain.  "'Twas distance lent enchantment to the view" of the hon. Gentleman of the United States.

          These, then, were the alternatives.  Was it not obvious that the destiny of these Provinces was union?  Was it not obvious that Nova Scotia and its harbour of Halifax was the outlet to the sea for Canada?  And was it not equally clear that a small Province could only find its security and the elements of nationality in joining its large and powerful kindred round it, to give the whole weight and importance?

          And when Canada increased, as it would increase, then the union of the whole would appear as necessary for the interests of the colony as its defence would be clearly an impossible undertaking for this country.

          He implored the House, therefore, not to take a step which would throw back our colonial policy for half a century, which would have the appearance of an insult to the Government that had been offered a great career of self-government, and which would tend to destroy its credit and its stability; but to follow the course that was indicated in the despatch of the Secretary of State, to exercise their influence in assuaging alarms, in soothing jealousies, and in friendly aid to those engaged in the endeavour to build up a strong, a vigorous, and a self-reliant State.


          MR. AYTOUN said, he hoped the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) would divide the House on his very moderate proposal.  He believed the subject to be one of the greatest importance.

          The union of Nova Scotia with Canada had occasioned very widespread dissatisfaction; and he believed there were good grounds for this discontent.  The evil consequences that had arisen were certainly greater than any prospective good that could be anticipated from it.

          The duties on the commerce of Nova Scotia had been increased and the control over their own revenue had been taken from them.  These evils might be counterbalanced by some prospect of future good; but what could Nova Scotia expect from its union with Canada?  All it could hope to derive was an increase of security from aggression on the land side.

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

It was notorious that in the event of Canada being attacked by the United States, no efficient defence could be made, so that even this benefit was rather imaginary than real.

          The main question was this – whether the union had been effected in a way to give the people of Nova Scotia reasonable ground for dissatisfaction?  He thought it had.  The hon. Member for Birmingham had shown how entirely the Earl of Carnarvon had failed to establish the position that Nova Scotia had been properly consulted on the question; they had not expressed their concurrence in it; and when, on the third reading, Lord Campbell proposed that the Bill should be delayed for a month, to enable the people of Nova Scotia to express their opinion in regard to it at the elections about to be held, the proposal was rejected, and the suggestion that a petition signed by 30,000 upon the subject was ignored because it happened to be presented in "another place."

          Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had admitted, speaking on the question of the guarantee for the intercolonial railways, that the Bill had been passed in a manner which, had it related to a matter of legislation affecting ourselves would have been termed precipitancy.

          The House was, he believed, to a great extent ignorant of the facts of the case; and he thought it would be wise, by granting a Commission, to enable them to judge whether it would not be expedient to reverse the decision taken last year.  The Under Secretary for the Colonies had talked of the expense to which these small colonies had put us; but the expense seemed to be as much since Confederation as before.

          Whether these Provinces remained united with us or joined the United States, it was of the utmost importance to retain their good-will, and we could only do this by consulting their feelings and by doing them justice.

          With that view he hoped the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham would be assented to by the Government, and if pressed to a division he should support it.


          MR. CARDWELL I have had so much to do with the Confederation of the North American Provinces that I am sure the House will indulge me with the opportunity of making a few remarks upon this question.

          My hon. Friend (Mr. Bright) has drawn a picture, which I hope is overcharged, of the discontent and dissatisfaction which prevail in Nova Scotia on this subject.  He has spoken of the colonists in terms which their well-proved loyalty to this country merit at our hands.  I am

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

sure it is with the deepest regret that we hear complaints made in Nova Scotia of the measure which we passed unanimously last year, and of the mode in which that union was accomplished.

          But I cannot admit either that the consent of Nova Scotia was not given to the Confederation or that the measure was any surprise to them.  The history of North American Confederation is at variance with such a statement.

          The original idea of such a Confederation was contained in the Report of Lord Durham; but that seed remained unfruitful in the ground; and when at last it began to germinate, it was not Canada which tried to obtain Confederation from Nova Scotia, but Nova Scotia which tried in vain to obtain Confederation from Canada.

          Passing from the early history of this question, with which at this late hour I will not weary the House, let us come to the precise period when this difficulty arose.  In 1861, Mr. Howe, the author or principal exponent of the present dissatisfaction, was at the head of affairs in Nova Scotia, and Dr. Tupper was at the head of the Opposition.  Resolutions, in favour of the union of some or all the colonies were moved in the Assembly of Nova Scotia by the First Minister, Mr. Howe.  They were seconded by Dr. Tupper; they passed with general consent, and I believe with unanimity.

          In 1862, Mr. Howe, having advised Lord Mulgrave to apply to the Duke of Newcastle for permission, wrote on the part of the Government of Nova Scotia a Circular Letter to the other colonies, inviting them to enter into union.  It was Canada which then rejected the application of Nova Scotia.

          In the following year there was a dissolution of the Nova Scotian Parliament, and the subject was before the people.  My hon. Friend says it was not the subject of a hustings cry.  Was it likely that it should have been?  It was not because there is no party spirit in Nova Scotia.  Like most small communities enjoying free institutions, Nova Scotia had plenty of party spirit and acrimony; and if this question did not form a hustings cry, what is the natural inference?  Just what you might infer – namely, that there was at that time no difference of opinion on the subject.

          My hon. Friend said that in 1864, when I was Colonial Secretary, I was shy in taking any steps when I received communications respecting the union of the Provinces.  Feeling strongly the benefits which will result from Confederation, I shall be very sorry if anybody can

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

blame me for lukewarmness in this matter.  But I accept the charge as showing that the mother-country, through me, made no undue attempt to force on Confederation, but that we rather acted Ministerially in forwarding and promoting what we believed to be the objects and wishes of the colonists.

          The project of union first became popular in the maritime provinces; and the moment it was discovered that Canada was willing to enter into the union, it was received with the greatest cordiality throughout the maritime Provinces.

          My hon. Friend has been a little misinformed when he says that, immediately after the dissolution, they were afraid to bring forward this measure in the Assembly of Nova Scotia.  There was a good reason for not bringing forward the measure, without diving into motives not upon the surface.  No sane man would have proposed to unite Nova Scotia with Canada when the intervening country, the colony of New Brunswick, was supposed to be entirely hostile to Confederation.  At that time there was as much disinclination to Confederation in New Brunswick as there is said to be in Nova Scotia now.  That being so, what course did we adopt?  We waited quietly.  Within a year there was an appeal to the people of New Brunswick.  The result was a large majority in favour of Confederation, and the measure was carried.

          I draw from what has happened in New Brunswick the inference that, though in a small community a particular grievance may have a great effect for a time in leading it to oppose a measure of general interest and advantage, that measure upon more mature consideration will by-and-by be cordially approved.

          Such a grievance is now felt by Nova Scotia.  Let us hope that when it is redressed, the same result will follow as in New Brunswick, and that in a short time we may find Nova Scotia as sensible of the advantages of Confederation as New Brunswick now is.

          My hon. Friend talks about the measure being a "surprise" to the people of Nova Scotia, and that there was no time for public discussion before the Resolution was arrived at.  Now, it so happens that after it was known there that the measure was before the Imperial Parliament the Assembly a second time expressed an opinion favourable to Confederation.  Here is an extract, and it is the only one with which I shall trouble the House, from the Address of the Assembly to the Governor, dated March 16, 1867 –

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

We have learnt with deep satisfaction that the efforts to effect a satisfactory union of the British North American colonies have been so successful, and we entertain no doubt that the best interests of all these Provinces will he greatly enhanced, and their connection with the Crown and the parent State permanently secured thereby.

          "Surprise?"  "No time for discussion?"  "No opportunity of appealing to the public?"  Why, this Address was passed six months or more after the delegates had been sent to this country, and when the news had returned to Nova Scotia that we were actually engaged at that moment in giving effect to their wishes.

          What are we to do under such circumstances?  Determine that the Legislature of a colony is not the true exponent of the feeling of a colony?  What consequences will flow from such a doctrine?  When we have conceded free institutions to a colony, are we to turn round upon the representatives elected by the people, and say, "You are not the true judges of public opinion in the colony.  We shall constitute ourselves the judges?"  That is a principle pregnant with evil consequences, and cuts at the root of the self-government which it is our boast that we have conferred upon our colonies.

          We are no doubt bound to do all we can to remove discontent, and I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that measures are already in progress that I trust will have the effect of turning the tide of opinion in Nova Scotia.

          There can be no doubt in what that discontent originated.  When the colonies were separate their tariffs were different; there were different currencies and different circumstances of trade.  The first effect of this Confederation was to alter this state of things, and it could not but be expected that the alteration would be attended with some dissatisfaction, some dislocation of existing interests, some violence to habits long cherished.

          In the present instance it is at once accounted for because the Canadian tariff, which was 15 per cent, seems to have been substituted for the Nova Scotian tariff, which was one of 10 per cent.  That is a case, no doubt, that calls for consideration and redress, and I am glad to understand that measures are being taken which I hope are likely to conduce to that result.  I should he glad to learn that the influence of the Colonial Office is to be applied so far as it legitimately can be with the view of attaining that result.

          My noble Friend the present Governor General of Canada

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

has administered the duties of his high office in a way which has earned for him the highest eulogiums from all quarters, and therefore I shall not be deemed disrespectful to him when I say that during the period of his office he has, no doubt, been influenced to a great extent by the opinions of the Members of the Government in Canada, and there is no doubt, too, that he has greatly contributed towards a measure which we have carried with so much satisfaction.  But his time of office is coming to a close.

          It will be the duty of the Government to select a new Governor – one who has no Canadian associations, and one who has had nothing to do with the question of Confederation.  They will then have an opportunity of selecting one who can bring a free and unembarrassed mind to this question, and who will be in a position to judge dispassionately of the complaints made by Nova Scotia.

          For my own part I should hesitate to consent to any direct interference in the affairs of this great dominion.  If we sanctioned that interference we might find at some future day that we had incurred a serious and a weighty responsibility – a responsibility incurred in consequence of our taking a step which in the first instance arose from the most honourable and kindly intentions.

          I believe that this feeling of discontent in Nova Scotia will pass away as it has done in the case of New Brunswick.  There is not, in my opinion, in any colony a stronger feeling of loyalty than there is in Nova Scotia, nor do any of our colonies possess a population with more business-like and active intelligence, and when this grievance has been removed and this discontent has passed away they will, I believe, look upon this Confederation with satisfaction.

          I do not know how far anything I may say may have any weight with the hon.  Member for Birmingham in dealing with the feelings and interests of those who have intrusted their case to his hands; but if he were to leave the responsibility of dealing with this question to the Ministers of the Crown, remembering that our interference might possibly be attended with injustice, he would, I think, be pursuing a course worthy his high position in this House, and calculated at the same time to promote the boat interests of those whom he desires to serve.


          MR. GORST, in rising to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, said, that there could be no doubt

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

that the House legislated last year in the belief that all the States concerned were consenting parties to the Bill.

          He could not, however, agree in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham – that the measure was proposed by the Earl of Carnarvon with the full knowledge that Nova Scotia had withheld her consent, nor could the House be aware that such was the fact.

          In matters of this nature the House must to a great extent rely upon the statements of the Government; for it would be impossible for the House, with its small experience of colonial affairs, to examine such allegations as those contained in the petition presented last year by the hon. Member for Birmingham.

          If the House, therefore, made a mistake last year it was an innocent and inoffensive one.

          But it was now evident from the flood of information which had since poured in, not only that the Nova Scotians were now unwilling, but that they had always been unwilling to consent to form a portion of this Confederation.  The delegates from Nova Scotia had, indeed, misrepresented the feelings of the people on whose behalf they spoke, and the people of Nova Scotia did not hesitate to use strong language; for they did not hesitate to declare that Her Majesty was led to believe that they were favourable to the scheme by means of a "fraud" and an "imposition."

          How could we turn a deaf ear to the statement that the constituted authorities of Nova Scotia were opposed to the union with Canada, and that a fraud and imposition had been practised upon the House?  Acting on the principle adopted last year, the least the House could do was to pay attention to the representations now made, and to institute inquiry; for it was not asserted that there was any mistake in the strong representations which the delegates from Nova Scotia had come over to make.

          On any ordinary question Nova Scotia might be referred to the authorities of the Dominion; but not when she complained of being included within that Dominion.

          We had only a choice of evils; but was it not a greater evil to coerce an unwilling people into subjection to a detested Power than to shake somewhat the security and stability of the new dominion?  If kind words could stop the mouths of the Nova Scotians, the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) might conciliate them; but it was useless to attempt such conciliation when denying a right.  It was so clear that the Nova

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

Scotians had a right to inquiry, that in the event of a division he would support the hon. Member for Birmingham.


          ADMIRAL ERSKINE, having presented on a former occasion a petition from 31,000 inhabitants of Nova Scotia, wished to say, he believed their disinclination for Confederation was founded, not upon any apprehension of increased burdens or damage to material interests; but rather on a fear lest their connection with this country should he imperilled, for they were distinguished by a rational loyalty based upon identity of feeling and sympathy with ourselves.  After the conflicting statements that had been made, it would be unreasonable to refuse the request for inquiry.


          MR. KARSLAKE said, he thought the last letter of the Duke of Buckingham to the colony, dated the present month, showed that the Government intended to consult the interests of Nova Scotia in the future.


          MR. BRIGHT I shall make only one or two observations on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies.  His principal objection to my proposition was that the issue of the proposed Commission would, in point of fact, be a direct insult to the whole of the Canadian Dominion.  My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) at the same time said that the Colonial Office, through its new Governor General, and that the Crown through him, would exercise certain influences as far as they might upon the Government at Ottawa for the purpose of adjusting the differences of Nova Scotia.

          It appears to me that if my proposition would be held to be an insult, the continual and repeated interferences of the Colonial Office, and of the Crown, through the Governor General, would be liable to the same description.

          Now, the difference between the Treasury Bench and the right hon. Member for Oxford and myself is this – that they do not regard the present state of things in Nova Scotia as at all as serious as I regard it.

          Of course, if the thing will blow over, and you can, through the Governor General coming into the harbour at Halifax, and seeing leading men there, rub away everything that is unpleasant, then my Motion is in no degree necessary; but I believe that the state of things is far more serious than either the Under Secretary for the Colonies or my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford seems to suppose.

          My own impression is that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

has made a speech about the most injudicious that could possibly have been made on the question for any Member of this House holding his office; and I believe that when his speech reaches America he will find that it will have a very injurious effect in Nova Scotia, and will not tend in the slightest degree to allay the gathering discontent which is felt in New Brunswick.

          The right hon. Gentleman, as he does upon other occasions, did me an injustice with regard to what I said last year.  He said that when the North American Confederation Bill was under discussion, I approved everything in it which would make the Confederation like America, and condemned everything in it which would make the Confederation resemble England.

          Now, what I condemned in the Bill was the putting a Province into it whose population had not consented; and next I called in question the wisdom of nominating a Legislative Council, or Upper House, for the whole dominion of Canada.

          The first part of my objection to the Bill, I think, is justified by what has taken place.  Although there is no complaint now with regard to the other part of my objection, I have every reason to believe that before we are many years older we shall find that that Council will not be satisfactory to the people of the dominion.

          Now, with regard to dividing on this question, I have this to say – If I were to divide with a very small minority, the impression on the other side of the Atlantic would be this – that the House of Commons has emphatically shut the door in the face of the petitioners whose petition I have presented, and whose case I have endeavoured to represent to the House.

          At the same time, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies holds out no hope whatsoever that the Government will even fairly consider the question.  His speech is a speech of indignation positively at the Canadian people coming here to lay their case before this House.  As this House passed the Bill last Session, and the Nova Scotian people came here to lay their complaints before the House, surely they have a right to be treated with great consideration.

          The course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken forces me to ask the House to divide upon the Motion.  I do not at all conceal from myself that the House may not agree to my Motion; but possibly, if they do not, they may, in the course of another year, make an inquiry into this

(Continued on next page)



Anti-Confederation Petition
from Nova Scotia

(Continued from previous page)

question, and they will then probably discover that it is as serious as I have endeavoured to describe it.

The speech which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford made was temperate and conciliatory; and but for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary I should not have asked the House to divide.


Question put.

The House divided: –
Ayes 87;   Noes 183:   Majority 96.




Related Hansard Items

1865 March 23
Pre-Confederation Defence of Canada
House of Commons, London   (36,699 words)

1867 February 19
British North America Bill, Lords 2nd Reading
House of Lords, London   (12,425 words)

1867 February 26
British North America Bill, Lords 3rd Reading
House of Lords, London   (3,926 words)

1867 February 28
British North America Bill, Commons 2nd Reading
House of Commons, London   (13,324 words)

1868 June 18
Anti-Confederation Petition from Nova Scotia
House of Lords, London   (305 words)

1868 July 06
Anti-Confederation Petition from Nova Scotia
House of Lords, London   (12,882 words)


Parliamentary material is reproduced with the permission of
the Controller of HMSO (Her Majesty's Stationery Office)
on behalf of the Westminster Parliament, London.

Source:—
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1868/jun/16/motion-for-an-address



Links to Relevant Websites

The Debate: Confederation Rejected, 1864 - 1869 by Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage, Memorial University of Newfoundland. 
    http://www.heritage.nf.ca/law/debate.html

Lévis Forts National Historic Site of Canada by Parks Canada
This line of forts completed the City of Quebec's defence system and was meant to oppose a possible American invasion by land.  In 1861, at the beginning of the American Civil War, the City of Quebec was vulnerable to invasion from the south.  By 1862, all reports were unanimous: Lévis must be fortified.  In 1864, defending Quebec's port was clearly more of an Imperial than a colonial issue.  British authorities wanted to protect the movements of their ships through this port in case of an American invasion.  London therefore sent William Drummond Jervois to the colony to design a new defence strategy.  Convinced that the Yankees were planning to invade Canada, Jervois believed time was running out.  The original plan for the fortifications included four forts, all of which faced towards the United States...
    http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/
        prof/itm2-crp-trc/htm/nlevis_e.asp



Note about
“User-Friendly”

This Hansard report (above) has been formatted to be much more "user-friendly" than most websites now allow.

The formatting of the above report includes two features that enable you the viewer to exercise complete control over the presentation, so that you can adjust the on-screen appearance of the text to suit your own individual preference.

One of these features is now widely available, but the other is rare.

(1) If you find that a larger size of type makes the text easier to read, you can use your browser controls to adjust the size of the type as you like.  Of course, this feature is now available in most browsers; there is nothing special about it here.

The Special Feature

(2) When you are viewing this Hansard report, you can adjust the length of each line of text to be longer or shorter, as you like — without encountering the regrettably-common difficulty of some of the text disappearing off-screen.

You know this experience all too well – you open a website that interests you only to find that the lines of text are so long that some of the words disappear off the screen.  To read the text, you have to scroll to the right to read the end of the first line of text.  Then you have to scroll to the left to read the beginning of the second line of text.  Then you have to scroll to the right to read the end of the second line of text.  Then you have to scroll to the left to read the beginning of the third line of text.  And so on all the way to the end.

This effect is so common that many people – viewers and website administrators alike – think it is the normal way that things work in websites.  This is the way it is, and this is the way it has to be.

However, that common impression is wrong, as this Hansard report demonstrates.

If you like, you can see this for yourself right now.  No doubt you are viewing this Hansard report in an on-screen "window."  Try using your cursor to move one side of the window inward, so that the window becomes narrower.  Either side will work.  You can move the left side toward the right, or you can move the right side toward the left. 

As you resize the window, watch the on-screen text.  As you reduce the window width, your browser automatically adjusts the number of words in each line of text so that no line of text becomes too long to be visible without horizontal scrolling.  Every word in every line of text can be read without horizontal scrolling.

This works in the same way when you increase the type size.  Every word in every line of text can be read without horizontal scrolling.

You can use these two user-friendly adjustments – type size combined with window width – to make the text on your screen comfortable and convenient for you to read.

Paragraphing

This version (above) has been separated into paragraphs, to make the text easier to read.  This paragraphing does not appear in the original printed Hansard version.

“Dividing the House”

In parliamentary procedure, there is a lot of significance in a member asking the House "to divide".

In parliamentary procedure, the usual way for a decision to be made by a group of dozens or hundreds of people – for a vote to be taken – is by a simple voice vote, a voting method used by deliberative assemblies (such as parliaments or legislatures) in which a vote is taken on a topic or motion by responding verbally (orally).  Typically the speaker or chair or presiding officer of the assembly will put the question to the assembly, making it clear that the members understand the effect of an "aye" vote and a "no" vote, and will then ask first for all those in favor of the motion to indicate so verbally, and then ask second all those opposed to the motion to indicate so verbally.  A similar procedure is to indicate agreement or disagreement by a show of raised hands; this works well in smaller assemblies such as town councils or school boards, but in larger assemblies such as the House of Commons a show of hands is used rarely or never.

A voice vote can be taken quickly (often it is completed in less than half a minute) compared to the much longer time required for a division – in the House of Commons half an hour for a single division vote is not unusual, and there are historical examples that extended to six hours or more.  Because they can be completed quickly, voice votes are preferred as a way to keep the business of the House moving, but they leave no record of who voted for what.  When a vote is about to be taken, any member who wants a record to be made of the vote numbers on both sides can request that the House be divided, and thus an accurate count can be obtained.

Political strategy can be involved in the method of voting chosen, with unrecorded voice votes preferred when the matter in question is either uncontroversial or paradoxically when the matter at hand is quite controversial and participants wish to enjoy "political cover."

When a vote is taken by division, the numbers of votes for and against are carefully counted and then are entered in the permanent record (Hansard) of the proceedings.  While the numbers for and against are always recorded for division votes, the names of the individual members who voted each way may or may not be recorded.  (In the Hansard record above, the numbers were recorded but the names were not.)

Reference:— Division vote by Wikipedia

  Hits per calendar month
       2011 Oct    50
       2011 Sep    35
       2011 Aug    35
       2011 Jul    35
       2011 Jun   342
       2011 May   140
       2011 Apr   119
       2011 Mar    75
       2011 Feb   118
       2011 Jan    54

       2010 Dec    76
       2010 Nov   104
       2010 Oct    76
       2010 Sep    24
       2010 Aug    36
       2010 Jul    20
       2010 Jun    29
       2010 May     -
       2010 Apr     -
       2010 Mar    47
       2010 Feb    22
       2010 Jan    20

       2009 Dec    23
       2009 Nov    56
       2009 Oct    82
  "-" means data are not available

Valid HTML 4.01 webpage

W3C HTML Validation Service
http://validator.w3.org/

Valid CSS webpage

W3C CSS Validation Service
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

This site can be viewed with any browser.


First uploaded to the WWW:   20 September 2009
Latest update:   02 November 2011