%*?*. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 ^^^^ii^- 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 !f 1^ IIIM 
 
 *^ 1^ 1112.2 
 
 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.4 
 
 I 
 
 1.6 
 
 »<s 
 
 V] 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^# 
 
 :^ > 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N./. 14580 
 
 (716) 877-4S03 
 
<. 
 
 »->. 
 
 *''^^ 
 
 
 e 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions /Instittt Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1 
 
 W^ 
 
 1981 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Motes/Notca techniques et bibllographlques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be b'biiographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly chenge 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 n Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 □ Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagie 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurie at/ou pellicul6e 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I — I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gtographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/cu illustrations en couleur 
 
 
 D 
 
 □ 
 
 D 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'()utr<)s documentb 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intirieure 
 
 Blank knaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que cartaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une resiauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6taft possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6tA filmies. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplAmentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le mellleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a dti possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exeiTiplaire qui sont peut-Stre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exigor une 
 modification dans la methods normale de filmage 
 sont indiquis ci-dessous. 
 
 [~~| Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag6es 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restauries et/ou peliiculies 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or f oxei 
 Pages a6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu6es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 r — I Pages damaged/ 
 
 I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 I — I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 j — I Pages detached/ 
 
 \~^ Showthrough/ 
 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality iii6gale de I'impression 
 
 □ Includes supplementar/ material/ 
 Comprend du materiel suppl^msntaire 
 
 r*n Only edition available/ 
 
 D 
 
 &eule Mitlon disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partiaiiy obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 film^es A nouveau de fapon A 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indlqu* ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 L 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 mx 
 
 aox 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce i la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here aro the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping vi/ith the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copias in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated ii:^pres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shcill contain the symbol — ♦- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, platos. charts, etc.. may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les images suivantes ont dtd reproduites av^c le 
 plus grsnd soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les pxemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimie sont filmds en commen^ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinto 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, seion le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originau. sont filmds en commengant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — »- slgnifis "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, itc, peuvent dtm 
 filmis d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 5 6 
 
H 
 
 ON 
 
SPEECHES 
 
 UKLIVRRED BT 
 
 RON. MARTIN I. WILKINS, 
 
 (ATTORNEY GENERAL,) 
 
 IH THB 
 
 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVA SCOTIA, 
 
 SESSION 1868, 
 
 ON RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO REPEAL OF THE "BRITISH 
 
 NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867." 
 
 HALIFAX, N. S. 
 PBIKTBD AT THE MORNING CHBONICLB OFPICB» 
 
 1868. 
 
*^ 
 
 RESOLUTIONS 
 
 LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY OF 
 NOVA SCOTIA, BY THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON 
 THE 5th FEBRUARY, 1868. 
 
 1. That tho Mcniberc of the Legislative Assembly of this Province, elected in 1863, 
 simply to legislate under the Colonial Constitution, had no authority to make, or con- 
 sent to, any material change of such Constitution, without first submitting the same to 
 the people at the Foils : 
 
 2. That the Resolution of the 10th April, which preceded the enactment of tho Brit- 
 ish North America Act, atjd is as follows : 
 
 "Whereas, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Confederation of the 
 British North American Provinces should take place ; 
 
 " Resolved therefore, That His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor be authorized to 
 appoint delegates to arrange with vhe Imperial Government a scheme of Union which 
 will effectually ensure just provision for the rights and interests of this Province — each 
 Province to have an equal voice in such delegation. Upper and Lower Canada being, 
 for this purjiose, considered as separate Provinces," 
 
 was the only authority possessed by the delegates, who procured the enactment of the 
 " Act for fhe Union of Canada, Nova Scotis, and New Brunswick"; 
 
 3. That even if the House of Assembly had the constitutional power to authorize 
 such delegation, which is by no means admitted, the foregoing resolution did not em- 
 power the delegates to arrange a federal union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New 
 Brunswick, without including, in such confederation, the Colonies of Newfoundland and 
 Prince Edward Island : 
 
 i. That no delegates from the two last named Colonies having attended, and an 
 unequal number from each of the others being present, the delegation was not legally 
 constituted, and had no authority to act under the said resolution — which expressly 
 required each of the Colonies tr be represented by an eq^iai number of delegates : 
 
 6. That the delegates did not " ensure just provision for the rights and intarests of 
 this Province," as they were, by the express terms of such resolution, bound to do, in 
 arranging a scheme of Union, but, on the contrary, they entirely disregarded those 
 rights and interests, and the scheme by them consented to would, if finally confirmed, 
 deprive the people of this Province of their rights, liberty, and independence, — rob them 
 of iheii revenues, — take from them the regulation of their trade, commerce, and taxes, 
 the management of their railroads and other public properly, —expose them to arbitrary 
 and excessive taxation, by a Legislature over which they can have no adequate control, 
 and reduce this hitherto free, happy, and self-governed Province to the degraded con- 
 dition of a dependency of Canada : 
 
 6. That no fundamental or material change of the constitution of the Province caa 
 be made, in any other constitutional manner than by a statute of the Provincial Legis- 
 lature, sanctioned by the people after the subject matter of the same had been referred 
 to them at the Polls, the Legislature of a Colonial Dependency having no power or 
 authority, implied from their relation to the people, as their legislative representatires, 
 to overthrow the constitution under which they were elected : 
 
 7. That the scheme of confederating Canada, New Brunswick, and Nora Scotia, 
 was never submitted to the people of this Province, at the Polls, before the 18th day of 
 September last, upwards of two and a half months after the British North America Act 
 was, by the Queen's Proclamation, declared to be in force, when th« people were thereby 
 
informed that they had been subjected, without tlieir consentj to the absolute dominion 
 of more populous and more powerful Colonies, and had lost their liberty : 
 
 8. That there being no statute of the Provincial Legislature, conflrming'or ratifying 
 the British North America Act, and the same never having been consented to, or autho- 
 rized, by the people at the Polls, nor the consent of this Province in any other manner 
 testified, the preamble of the Act. reciting that tliis Province had expressed a desire to 
 be confederated with Canada and New Brunswick, is untrue ; and when the Qneen and 
 the Imperial Legislature, were led to believe that this Province had expressed such a 
 desire, a fraud and imposition were practised upon theni : 
 
 9. Tiiat the truth of the preamble of the British North America Act, reciting the 
 desire of Nova Scotia to be Confederated, is essential to the constitutionality of the 
 ftatute ; and if the same is false, the statute is defective, because a statute cannot be 
 rendered constitutional, by falsely assuming as true the condition which is indispensable 
 to its constitutionality : 
 
 10. That from the time the scheme of Confederation was first devised Jn Canada, 
 until it was consummated by the Imperial Act in London, it was systematically kept 
 from the consideration of the people of Nova Scotia at the Polls ; and the Executive 
 Council and Legislature, in defiance of petitions signed by many thousands of the elec- 
 tors of this Province, persistently and perseveringly prevented the same from being 
 presented to the people, 
 
 11. That at the recent Election, the question of Confederation, exclusively occupied 
 the attention of the people, who were then, for the first time, enabled to express their 
 will on a subject of the most vital importance to their happiness ; and the result has 
 proved, tliat this Province does not desire to be annexed to Canada, and that the people 
 of Nova Scotia repudiate the enforced provisions of the British North America Act, 
 which, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Resolutions, they believe to be uncon- 
 stitutional, and in no manner binding upon them : 
 
 12. That the Quebec Scheme, which is embodied in the British North America Act, 
 imprudently attempted to be forced on the people of Nova Scotia, not only without their 
 consent, but against their will, has already created wide-spread irritation and discontent ; 
 and unless the same be withdrawn, will, we fear, be attended with the most disastrous 
 consequence", as the loyal people of this Province, are fully conscious of their rights 
 as British subjects, set an inestimable value upon their free institutions, and will not 
 willingly consent to an invasion of those rights, or to be subjected to the dominion of any 
 other power, than their lawful and beloved Queen : 
 
 13. That the Colonies were politically allied to each other, by their common relation- 
 ship to t'.ie Queen and her Empire, in a more peaceable and less dangerous Connexion, 
 than under any scheme of Colonial Confederation that could be devised, even on the 
 fairest, wisest, and most judici9U8, principles : 
 
 14. That tha people of Nova Scotia do not impute to Her Majesty the Queen, and 
 her Government, any intentional injustice, as they are well aware, that fraud and decep- 
 tion were practiced upon them, by those who misrepresented the public sentiment of this 
 countrj', and who, for reasons which we will not venture to assign, desired that confeder- 
 ation might be for'-ed upon this Province, without tlie consent and against the will of the 
 people : 
 
 15. That an hun.ble address be presented to the Queen, embodying the substance of 
 the foregoing resolutions, informing Her Majesty, that her loyal people of Nova Scotia, 
 do not desire to be in any manner confederated with Canada, and praying Her Majesty 
 to revoke her Proclamation, and to cause the British North America Act to be repealed, 
 as far as it affects the Province of Nova Scotia. 
 
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SPEECH, 
 
 ON MOVING THE REPEAL RKSOLUTION IN THE nOUSE OF AI^SEMBLY ON MONDAY, 
 
 IOtu FEBRUARY, 1868. 
 
 Hon. Attouney Genkkal addressed the House as follows : I regret proceeding 
 to the debate on these resolutions in the absence of the hon. member for Inverness, but 
 having been informed that lie is not likely to be in his place for some days, I find it 
 necessary to go on with the discussion. I do so with the less regret because I know 
 that this debate will be reported with accuracy, and that consequently tliat learned and 
 honorable gentleman will be put in possession of the arguments which I and my friends 
 on this side of the House intend to use. I am about to lay before the members 'if the 
 House, before the people of this country, and probably before the people of England, 
 the facts of one ot the most important political cases that ever arose in the Colonies, 
 and in order to do so satisfactorily, I shall endeavor to shew the true condition in which 
 this country was placed before certain political changes took place in its constitution. 
 
 I shall endeavor in the first place to show that Nova Scotia was a well -governed 
 and law -respecting, a contented and happy country. She was well-governed, because 
 her institutions were constructed in miniature on tiie model of the British constitution, 
 which is the finest political system by which any nation was ever governed — a 
 system calculated to maintain order and harmony among all orders of people — a system 
 under which obedience to law, and the necessary result of obedience to law, liberty, 
 have been better maintained than in any other country ; for, sir, however paradoxical it 
 may seem, it is a literal truth that the highest degree of freedom ct/nsists in obedience 
 to law. It is obedience to law wnich preserves to me my right.i and liberties, my pro- 
 perty and my life : and tlierefore, however inconsistent it may seem, it is a literal truth 
 that the highest degree of freedom consists in obedience to law; and that country which 
 possesses institutions calculated to produce that result in perfection must be the happiest 
 nation on the earth. Now the constitution of Nova Scotia was based upon the principles 
 of the British Constitution — those principles which best suit *he genius of the people. Its 
 whole condition was different from those of any other country on the Continent of America, 
 and tlie constitution which was granted to the people of this province by King George 
 
 II , and which hid been enlarged and greatly improved by his successors on the throne 
 of England, was a well-working constitution. It was as much like the BritisU constitu- 
 tion as it was possible to make tilings which are different in their nature. There were 
 some delects in it, among which tlie greatest certainly was the want of a court for the 
 impeachment and punisliment of political offenders. That was a deficiency in our sys- 
 tem, — without it no system of llesponsible Government can bo perfect, audit is certainly 
 curious, but by no means very remarkable, that the great statesmen who have originated 
 this splendid constitution for the confederation of Canada have tak^n precious good care 
 in its manufacture, — whilst they have established courts for the administration ot ordin- 
 ary justice, as well as courts of appeal — to leave out the court of impeachment, which, 
 considering the nature of the men who formed that constitution, and who are likely to be 
 instrumental in carrying it out, would be the most desirable court of all. 
 
 When we compare our constitution in Nova Scotia with that of the Great Republic, 
 the contrast must be favorable to this province. We admire the people of that country, 
 we have sincerely sympathised with them in their recent distress and troubles. We feel 
 towards them all the emotions of fraternal affection, but we do not approve of their con- 
 stitution. We consider that their institutions are possessed of two fatal defects — the one 
 is democracy, the other confederatio... We consider that having our little constitution 
 moulded upon the monarchicalinstitutions of England makes it infinitely superior to that 
 of the United States, although the latter is a master work of human hands, and the finest 
 piece of composition ever prepared by men for political purposes. It wan manufactured 
 by men who were really statesmen — by men who loved their country — by men who had 
 
been educated in an Knglish school— by men who had sense enough to perceive the 
 beauties of the British constitution — by men who endeavored with the utmost imagin- 
 able pains and ciKill to appiy tnc principles oi me liriusn oonsiiiuiion lO a ueuiocraiic 
 system and form* of government; but the people of the United States were unfortunate, 
 after having separated from England in 1783, in the political system which they insti- 
 tuted. Ilud they combined in a legislative union — had they incorporated all the States 
 under one Legislature, having one set of laws and revenues, they would undoubtedly, at 
 this time, be the greatest nation upon the earth. They certainly would not have been 
 second to aiiy other; but, unfortunately, they chose Confederation, and that Confedera- 
 tion has resulted as every Confederation must result, for it is impossible so to adjust the 
 rival and discordant interests of different countries under a confederation as to maintain 
 permanent harmony. It is not in the nature of things tiiat they should continue as sepa- 
 rate and individual countries, having separate legislatures and individualities, without 
 clashing with one another at some time or other. We have seen, notwithstanding the 
 skill with which that famous constitution of the United States was made — notwithstand- 
 ing the intelligence of that people, that great evils have made their appearance already. 
 The Confederation was broken, an internecine civil war deluged their land with blood, 
 and they expended in three years more than probably three times the amount of the 
 national debt of England, in money, and the destruction of their property ; and, sir, at this 
 moment there is no man on earth who is able to say what is to be the result of the poli- 
 tical affairs of that great country. An earthquake is growling under their feet, and no 
 man can tell when and where the volcano is to burst, bringing with it destruction and 
 ruin. I make these observations with the greatest possible regret, for I believe that 
 every man in Nova Scotia wishes well to the people of the United States, although the 
 people of this province have no desire to be connected with them. They are too wise, 
 too sensible to desire for a moment to part with tlieir own well-working public institu- 
 tions, and enter into union with the States. 
 
 I shall now turn youi- attention to another Confederation — the Confederation of Canada 
 — and contrast it with the United States, and show you that if it be not desirable to en- 
 ter into Union with the United States, Confederation with Canada is absolutely hate- 
 ful and detestable to the people of this country. We object to a union with the American 
 States, because we disapprove of Democracy and Confederation, but there is a worse 
 political combination, that is Oligarchy and Confederation. If wo dislike the constitu- 
 tion of the United States we are bound to hat» and detest the cons*itution which 
 the Confederation act has prepared for the people of these fine colonies. If 
 wo were to join the United States, Nova Scotia would possess all the freedom 
 that every State in the Union possesses. We would have the choice of our own Gover- 
 nors, of our Senators, of our Legislators; we would have the power of self-taxation and 
 self-government in the highest degree ; but what would be our position if we suffered 
 ourselves to be dragged into this hateful union with Canada, where would Nova Scotia's 
 freedom be ? Before the British America Act was imposed upon us Nova Scotia was as 
 free as the air. How could the people of this country be taxed? There was no power 
 to tax them except this House, their own servants, whom they commissioned to tax them. 
 Is that the state of things now? Have we any power over the taxation of this country? 
 Does not the Act in question confer upon Canada the fullest power of taxing all the pro- 
 perty of Nova Scotia at their arbitrary wiU ? What is our control over that Legislature ? 
 We have but a paltry voice of 19 members in the popular branch, not a single one in the 
 other. We liave, therefore, to protect the rights of this country from spoliation, only 
 19 members out of 253. If we should continue in Confederation we should not be gov- 
 erned by the people, as is the cane in the United States, but by a little knot of Executive 
 Councillors in Canada. Therefore we have no disposition to unite with one or the other — 
 neither with the United States nor with Canada; and, sir, if we were driven to the neces- 
 sity of making a choice between the two calamities, wc would be bound to ';lioose the 
 least, and that would be, to join the United States of America, and participate in their 
 liberty and prosperity rather than submit to tlie tyranny of Canada. We would have to 
 prefer the democratic tyranny of the one country to the oligarchical tyranny of the other, 
 and there would be no difficulty in making a choice ; but thank heaven we are not called 
 upon to choose between them. We have a constitution of our own, and that belongs to 
 the people of Nova Scotia ; and I am going to show you tliat the constitution they enjoy 
 is their own property — that the Parliament of England had no power to take it away 
 from them — that the British North America Act is entirely unconstitutional — that Nova 
 Scot' a has never been legally confederated with Canada — and it rests with her to say 
 whether she will ever be so or not. 
 
 Before I come to look at the constitution of this country, I must make a few remarks 
 with regard to England. We intend to send to the mother country certain gentlemen 
 authorized to present to the Queen our humble address, praying Her Majesty to relieve 
 us from this Conft^deration with Canada. We go in the most perfect confidence that our 
 prayer will be heard. We know to whom we are going to appeal. \Ye are not placed 
 
in the condition that the old thirteen colonies were in nmlor King George III. Wc 
 have a very ditrcrent person to deal with in Queen Victeria. Wc have to approach min- 
 isters very different trom those ot the last century. We have no stubuorn ivmn Goorg« 
 III. ; wp have no prejudices of the royal mind to counteri(>.t ; we have not the infatuation 
 ofhis miniHters to meet. We have the greatest princess that ever adorned a human throne, 
 a most virtuous Queen, who, when she accepted the sceptre, took an oath that she would 
 rule the country according to the laws, customs and statutes of the realm. She 
 has most nohly fulfilled her obligations, and, in answer to tlie prayers of her own church, 
 " has bcPH most plenteously endued with heavenly gifts." In her person she is an exam- 
 ple of every virtue; her obedience to the laws exalts her above nil other monarchs. Ilor 
 personal virtues are brighter than all the gems which adorn her Imperial diadem. It 
 is to a Queen like this that the people appeal. Have the people no right to present them- 
 selves before their Sovereign? Has not this ever been the most loyal portion of her 
 dominions. Did not our forefathers flee from their country because they would not par- 
 ticipate in tel)ellion I Did they not leave their property for their king's sake? I have 
 seen a resolution passed by the Legislature ot Nova Scotia at the time the thirteen colo- 
 nies rebelled actually petitioning the King to impost! taxes upon the Province to asflist 
 the Empire in its extremity. From that time to this the people of Nova Scotia iiaTe 
 been the most loyal that ever dwelt in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. They will 
 have confidence in presenting themselves before the Queen, and asking to be restored— 
 to what? To any thing that they have no right to demand? Simply to their own. 
 Can any man suppose for a moment that they will be rejected by a Sovereign like ours? 
 We need be xinder no apprehension. We arc pursuing the proper course to obtain a 
 legitimate end, and there is no power on earth that can prevent the people from being 
 restored to their rights but downright tyranny, and that we cannot expect from the hands 
 of the Queen and her Government. Do not let the loyalty of Nova Scotia be suspected. 
 Has any one a right to suspect it ! Look at the injuries done to the people of this Province 
 within the last six months. Sec their liberties taken away ; see them taxed by a foreign and 
 alieff Legislature ; sec their property tnken from them ; all their customs handed over to 
 others, collected by strangers before their very eyes. See stamp duties and tea duties 
 imposed upon them. Those very acts which forced the old thirteen colonies to rebellion 
 have been imposed upon Nova Scotia with the same cxtraordinarj fatuity. And yet have 
 the people rebsllea? I have heard of no movement of agitation on the part of the peo- 
 ple beyond the simple burning in effigy of one of the delegates. If tliat delegate had be- 
 longed to the United States, instead of being burned in efflgy, he would have been burn- 
 ed in reality. If men commissioned by any State in the American Union to negotiate 
 any arrangement affecting the constitution returned with such a bargain as those men 
 returned with, they would not have been permitted to live. The slow process of justice 
 would not have been extended to them, but tliat has not been the case in Nova Scotia. 
 This law-respecting people have made no movement, but they are going to submit 
 no longer. The time for forbearance is at an end. They had no means of constitution- 
 ally speaking until now, and they intend to make use of it. If it should be unsuccessful, 
 I may be asked what will be the consequence? I am hardly going to anticipate that the 
 appeal of the people can be unsuccessful. I deny the possibility of failure, but then I 
 assert on the behalf of the people as long .as the Queen of England extends to the people 
 of Nova Scotia her protection so long will the people refuse to withdraw their allegiance. 
 So long as they are protected they will be loyal and faithful ; and, sir, let it happen that the 
 Queen of England and her ministers in Parliament, regardless of the past, regardless of 
 the loss of the old colonies, shall determine to trample on the rights and liberties of this 
 country ; if they should do so, then it will indeed be a dark and gloomy hour. Sir, 
 when by the decrees of inexorable fate the flag of England and the name of Englishmen 
 shall be taken away from ths peeple of Nova Scotia, and the flag and name of any other 
 country substituted, then I prophesy that this Province will be turned into a house of 
 mourning, and every eye will shed hot burning tears of bitter regret and inexpressible 
 woe. 
 
 Now, having made these preliminary remarks, I shall call your attention to the his- 
 tory of our Constitution. I have heard men assert that wo have no valid constitution — 
 that it is made up of despatches. I have been at the pains of examining into this ques- 
 tion, and can show vou that Nova Scotia has had a chartered constitution, an irrevocable 
 constitut'on — one .hat no power on earth can take away except by force or violence. 
 Neither the Queon nor Parliament of England has any right to touch or abrogate that 
 constitution. This country was originally known by the name of Acauia, and was in 
 the possession of the French at one time, and in that of the English at another— was 
 long, in fact, debateable ground. The French at last made the settlement of Port Royal, 
 at present called Annapolis, They fortified it in the early part of the 18th century ; but 
 an expedition was fitted out by a person of ^he name of Nicholson, from Boston, who 
 came over and forced the French garrison to capitulate. Consequer+ly the Province 
 was at this time conquered by the British. In 1713, soon after the conquest, by the 
 
treaty of Utrecht, Louis XIV. assigned Aoadiu lo Ouecn Anne of RnglaMd, and 
 her heirs forever. I have before me the language or tiiis treaty; it is striking and 
 plain : " Yielded and made over to the Queen of Great Britain and to her lieirs forever." 
 From that time to this Nova Scotia has continued to belong to the liritiih Crown, and 
 the llrst inquiry wo meet is this, What was the effect of that conquest and subsequent 
 cession by Louis XIV. to Queen Anne? What was her title? Her title was absolute, 
 in fee simple — higlier than tiio title any man in England or America possesses to his 
 estate — higher than the title possessed by t!io I'rince of Wales when he purchased, the 
 other day, a hunting-ground in England. The Prince of Wales holds his eHtuto from 
 the Queen, who is the lady paramount of all the lands in the country, and ho may forfeit 
 it to iler Majesty ; but that was not the case with the gift to Queen Anne. She became 
 the absolute owner of Nova Scotia. It did not belong to the people or Parliament of 
 England, who had no more to do with it than the people of Turkey. It was properly 
 transferred, and belonged absolutely to Anne, the Queen of England, and her heirs for- 
 ever. For thirty-four years after this cession it remained the property of the Queen and 
 her heirs, and she could do with it just as she pleased — ^just as any man in this Mouse 
 might do with an estate belonging to him. She might put a tenant on it, and regulate the 
 covenants under which the tenant should hold it. In 1747 it came into the hands of 
 George II., and he, being desirous of hAving it settled by English subjects, promised the 
 people of England who would undertake the settlement of the country that ho would 
 give them the British Constitution in mini.iturc. Accordingly he ordered a patent to be 
 drawn up, with the Great Seal — a seal larger than the crown of a hat — for Lord Corn- 
 wallis, by which he granted to the people of Nova Scotia the constitution they were to 
 posress. I shall call your attention briefly to the words of that part of tiie patent which 
 refers to the establishment of a Legislative Assembly in the Province. He established 
 by this patent a Governor ia the place of King, a Council in the place of Lords, and a 
 House of Assembly ir thejilace of Commons, and made the constitution of the colony 
 as nearly like that of Great Britian as he could. " And we do hereby (this Cliarter is 
 dated 6th May, 1747,) give and grant unto you (Edward Cornwallis) full power and 
 authority, with the advice and consent of our said Council, from time to time, as need 
 shall require, to summon and call general assemblies of the freeholders and planters 
 within your jurisdiction, according to the usage of the rest of our plantations in Amer- 
 ica, and that you, the said Edward Cornwallis, vith the advice and consent of our House 
 of Assem'^ly or the major part of it, shall hav3 full power and authority to make and 
 ordain (here is power given to the Legislature) laws, statutes, and ordinancon for the 
 public peace and welfare and good government of our said Province, and of the people 
 and inliabitants thereof, and such measures as shall tend to the benefit of us and our 
 successors, which said laws and ordintinces are not to be repujnant, but as nearly agree- 
 able as possible to the statutes of this our said Kingdom of England." 
 
 This solemn deed and covenant cannot be repudiated. After Cornwallis obtaiuisd this 
 patent in 1747, he and the other governors who succeeded him were very slow in calling 
 together the freeholders ih order to give the people the benefit of this Assembly, and 
 accordingly in 1767, or ten years after the granting of the patent, a correspondence took 
 place between the ministers of George II. and Governor Lawrence, in which the minis- 
 ters called upon the latter to execute that deed, and give to the people tiieir Legislative 
 Assembly. Mr. Lawrence thought he could make as good laws as any Assembly, and 
 he and his Council persisted in passing laws. From the time the constitution was given, 
 instead of calling the Legislature together, he summoned tiie Council, and witli them 
 made laws for the government of the Province. In 1755 the subject was brought to the 
 notice of the Crown Officers of England, for the people of Nova Scotia complained that 
 their charter had not been carried into effect, and some of them refused obedience to the 
 orders in Council, on the ground that no rules and regulations could be made lor the 
 government of the people except through the House of Assembly, after that charter had 
 been given. The matter was referred to William Murray and Richard Lloyd, the Attor- 
 ney and Solicitor Generals of England, tlie former of whom subsequently became Lord 
 Mansfield, one of the most eminent of English jurists. And hero is their opinion : *' We 
 have taken the said observations into our consideration, and we are humbly of opinion 
 that the Governor and Council alone are not authorized by His Majesty to make laws." 
 Here is the opinion of these distinguished jurists, that the king could not make laws 
 for the Colony. The king having given the charter in question, had no power to make 
 laws. Wher or a country is conquered, the conqueror to whom it is ceded has power 
 to do as he o ^he pleases in its management. He may, if he clv>08es, allow the inhabi- 
 tants of that country to make their own laws, or put them all to death, or he may send 
 them a code of laws made by himself, and allow his Governors to execute them within 
 the country. But if he confers upon the country any privileges, *he deed is obligatory 
 upon himself and heirs, and he cannot annul it ; he is bound to submit to it. It is just 
 the same with an individual : »8 soon as he signs and seals a deed for a piece of land to his 
 neighbor, neither he nor his heire can afterwards divpute ^he seal. The day the king signed 
 
that deed, nnd appended the seal to tlie coiiimiflslon ot the Governor, ho conc'dod th« 
 power to mak" lawo. Both his Attorney and Solicitor Generals tell him, vri> have looked 
 at Lord Con vallis' patent, and you have not the power to make «uch laws. No law can 
 be binding upon the people of Nova Scotia, except such as are passed in accordance 
 with tiiat charter. To show how completely irrevocable these charters are, I will briefly 
 call your attention to a case which arose many years after, in 1774. Lord MnnsfiHd 
 then delivered the opinion of the Court of King'a Bench upon a case which had been 
 a number of timeH solemnly argued. After the conquest of Grenada, the King of Eng- 
 land giive a commission to a gentleman of the name of Melville, almost identically the 
 same as that he gave to Cornvallis. This deed was signed in the month of Apuil, 1764, 
 but Governor Melville did not proceed to take charge until the following December. In 
 the meantime the King issued letters patent under tlie great seal, on the 20th .July, 1764, 
 laying a tax upon the people of Grenada— performing in fact an act of legislation. The 
 case was brought up for argument ; the mercliant who had paid the tax having oonie over 
 to England, and having been allowed to try it by the Attorney General. The ju<lgment 
 of the 'Jourt was that tho tax was illegal, because the King, when tie signed that Com- 
 mission to Melville, ceased to have any power over Grenada. Here are some of the 
 observations made by Lrrd Mansfield: " Aftor full consideration, we are of opinion that 
 before thf letters patent of the 20th July, 1764, the King had precluded himself from the 
 exercise of the leg'slative authority over the island of Grenada." Again he said: " We 
 therefore tliink that after the two Proclamations, and the Commision of Governor Mel- 
 ville, the king had immediately and irrecoverably granted to all who are or shall become 
 inhabitants of Grenada, the right of having their legislation exercised by an Assembly 
 and a Governor in Council." 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, I sliall endeavor to l)ring this argument to a close by inviting the 
 attention of the House, and of the people of England, to whom I am speaking at this 
 moment, to the great importance of Nova Scotia to the British Empire. This is a sub- 
 ject wliioh has never been well considered. The old colonies are the most valuable por- 
 tion of the earth — by the stubbornness of a British King, and the stupidity of his 
 Ministers, they were lost to the Empire; and that dismemberment was the most serious 
 that ever befell the British nation. Lord Chatham actually died protesting against it. 
 Nova Scotia stands in the front of the American continent, just as England does in that 
 of Europe. She possesses great mineral wetolth, the source of England's greatness. Her 
 coal and iron, with the energy of her peoi)le, have brought the mother country to her 
 present proud condition. 'Ve possess the same advantages — we, too, are almost an 
 island. If Neva Scotia were lost to England she might bid adieu to New Brunswick, to 
 Prince Edward Island, and tc Newfoundland. These four Maritime Provinces together 
 have a territory similarly situated to the British Isles, and are capable of sustaining a 
 population equal to theirs. Now Great Britain has beei' to Nova Scotia a very afFection- 
 Rte parent. She has been most kind to us, but we sometimes hear the statesmen of 
 England grumbling a little about the expense incurred in defiiiding these colonies. I 
 must confess I cannot see what that expense is. Great Britain is a maritime nation and 
 a military power. She must have the best navies on the ocean, and one of the stronges'; 
 armies in the field. Wliere could she maintain her troops and navy more economically 
 than in these Colonies? The climate is a very healthy one; the statistics show that the 
 mortality here is less than in any other part of the world. The people of England would 
 never consent to a standing army remaining in their "-vn country. Therefore the scat- 
 tering of the troops through these Colonies has been > .ind of necessity, and so far from 
 these Colohies co.sting England anything, they i.re litt ^ or no expense to her. She was 
 always a kind mother, although not a wise one at tinies. When she adopted her trade 
 policy in 1848 she left these colonies entirely unprotected. She left the trade of Nova 
 Scotia to be managed by people v^'ho knew nothing about it. She had up to that time 
 managed our tnule herself; she withdrew her fostering care, and left us to walk alone. — 
 We have managed to live very happy and contentedly, but she did not act wisely towards 
 these colonies. Since 1848 no less than six millions of people have left England, Ireland 
 and Scotland ; where have they gon^ to ? They have gone directly past us into the Uni- 
 ted Statos- If England had been a judicious foster-mother she would have diverted the 
 emigration into these colonies, if she had encouragsd the commercial advantages of 
 Nova Scotia, and the agricultural capabilities of Canada, we would now be a strong 
 nation, instead of having only four millions of souls in our midst. We would have a 
 population of nine or ten millions, and instead of being afraid of invasion, the people of the 
 United States would be pleased to think, during their internecine war, that such was tHe 
 peaceful character and orderly disposition of Her Majesty's Colonics in America that, 
 there was n > danger to be apprehended from them. 
 
 I believe there is no time that a parent knows the value of the child he loves until he- 
 hears the cold earth falling upon the coflRn, and the sad words, " earth to earth, ashes to- 
 ashes, dust to dust." Let England transfer this little province to the United States, and 
 she will, after a few years' time, wake up to the loss she has sustained. If the people of 
 
10 
 
 the United States succeed in restoring the union, in healing the dtfTerencm between the 
 Nortli and tlie South, and in oonce^tratinf thei'* tremendoiw energies, sh*; must beconae 
 one of tlie greatest powers of tlie world. She is now a great naval i)Ower, but give her 
 Ihe harbour of Halifax, — which in her hands could be made just as impregnable as Gibral- 
 tar. Give her the coal, iron, and fisheries of Nova Scotia, aud her powei will be largely 
 increased, arid millions of people will pour into this country. The fisheries alone cf these 
 provinces would be to the United States a nursery for a million or a million and a half of 
 teamen. How lovig would England then boast of her maritime supremacy 1 When the 
 Americans had only i fow miserable chips they brought more disgrace upon the British 
 flag than any other nation ever succeeded in doing. What would they be if, when chal- 
 lenged to the test by Great Britain, they had possession of the Colonies in addition to their 
 ordinsry strength ? Suppose in the order ■<f things France, another great naval power, 
 shcnld combine her energies with those of the United States, against Eiigiand.Kin what po- 
 sition would the mother country be t How could she contend with such niariUme nations 
 as these ? Therefore the loss of thesie Colonies nr>ight lead to the degradation of England, 
 and instead of standing at the head of nations she might be lowered to the condition of a 
 secondary state, if indeed she were not converted into a province: of France. 
 
 I sh.-.U now very briefly call ' the attention of the House to the resolutions before it. 
 They develope the arguments on which we ask for a repeal of the Union. The first clause 
 contends that the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia had no power to change the con- 
 stitution ; they had none except what was given them in the charter. Parliament had no 
 power over this country — it never had any. This country belonged to the Queen of Eng- 
 land, and our Assembly had no constitutional right to consent to or make the slightest al- 
 teration in the constitution under which they were elected to make laws. That is the 
 position wli'ch we take, and I would like to see the British constitutional authorities ex- 
 amine this subject, for I am convince(' they will acknowledge that I am corre(!t. The 
 second resolution is to the effect that the only a'lthorily which the Delegates had yrua de- 
 rired from the Assembly, who had no power to give any such authority at all. Even this 
 authority, however, they disregarded. Their authority simply extended to the negoti- 
 ation of the terms of a Federal union between all the British North American Colonies. 
 They had no power to select three provinces and confederate them, and therefore in that 
 respect they "did not act up to their autliority. Then, sir, their delegation was not legally 
 constituted. If I gave a power of Attorney to A. B. and C. to transact business for me, 
 A. and B. cannot do it without C, unless I make it optional for them to do it jointly or 
 fevorally ; but if I authorize three men jointly to execute a deed for me, or do any other 
 act, any two of them cannot legally perform the duty. If the House of Assembly autho- 
 rized a delegation to be constituted, consisting of ar "qual number of men from Upper and 
 Lower Canria, New Brunswick, Prince Edward's Island, Newfoundland, and Nova Sco- 
 tia, the delegates had no power to act unless this stipulation wa3 carried out. No consti- 
 tuent assembly was constituted — it could make no constitution, or do any act until all the 
 vlalegates were present. If there were 5 from one province and 6 from another, the whole 
 proceeding was a nullity, because the delegation was not constituted according to their 
 instructions. Then again they were tclu that they were to make just provision for the 
 rights aud mterests of Nova Scotia. How did they dj that? They gave the whole pro- 
 vince aw.iy. We had a well-working constitution ; we made our own laws, raised our own 
 revenues, and taxed ourselves. We owned railways, fisheries and other public* property 
 but, they gave them all away for nothing. Wu can at fl.ny moment be taxed to any extent 
 arbitrarily by an oligarchy iu Canada. 
 
 The sixth resolution states that no change can be made without an appeal to the people. 
 Here is a self-evident proposition. The constitution belongs to whom'' Tome House of 
 Assembly ? No. To the Legislative Council ! No. It is the property of the people of 
 Nova Scotia — every man, woman and child are the ownc", and it cannot be taken away 
 ft'om them without their consent. Even the arbitrary n>onarchies of Europe admit that 
 principle. When Napoleon seized upon the Empire what did I; j do? At all events lie 
 went through the ceremony of sending around the ballot box, and asking tlie people 
 whether they were willing to change their constitution. The other day two States of 
 Italy, Nice and Savoy, were transferred after the Austrian campaign, and what was done ? 
 Did one king sit down and cede the country to the other? No; the people were called 
 upon to decide whether they were prepared to accv.pt the change of constitution or not. 
 No constitution can be lawfully and constitutionally taken away without consulting the 
 people who own tho constitution. This is a self-evident proposition— just p- evident as 
 the fact that no man can have his farm taken away from him without his consent. 
 
 These resolutions go on to argue that the people of Nova Scotia were never consulted 
 •iintil the 18th September, 1867, alter the British North America Act had passed the Par- 
 liament, and the Queen had givea it force by her proclamaMon. They were then for the 
 first time asked whether they were willing to accept the change of constitution. Then did 
 the people answer emphatically that they would have nothirig to do with it. These reso- 
 lutions state that the preamble of the Imperial Statute is fAlse, and I believe tha. when the 
 Quebec scheme went home no such words were in it. But no sooner did the crown offi- 
 cers cast their eyes over \t than they, knowing the constitutional course in all such laat- 
 
11 
 
 ters, perceived that it was impossible for the Imperial Goremraent to legislate upon the 
 question without the consent or request of the people of these colonies. Accordingly thty 
 acir.e^l tf.<; preamble .'eclarlr.g that " w!-ereas the people of Canndn. Nova Scotia and New 
 Brunswick desire to be federally united, See." That 3tatute could not have been placed 
 before the Imperial Parliament unless it had these wordg in it, for it would be unconstitu- 
 tional unless the people of these colonies had testified their assent to it. Therefore the 
 preamble being false, the statute is unconstitutional and falls to the grounJ. 
 
 The resolutions go on to say that the people were not only not consulted, but that they 
 were purposely and designedly prevented from being consulted. Is not that a true state- 
 ment ? What did *!ie House of Assembly, who recently set upon these benches, with no 
 great credit to them, do in th'i month of March last ? When it was moved that the people 
 of Nova Scotia had a right to be consulted at the polls, whether they would consent to be 
 confederated or not. that resolution wps negatived by 32 against 10 representatives of the 
 people. Whose servants were these 32 persons ? The servants of the Executive Council ; 
 they ignored the authority of the people, and said that the constitution of Nova Scotia be- 
 longed to Dr. Tuppcr and a few others. Then I think we have asserted strictly in accor- 
 dance with the fact that the people of Nova Scotia were systematically and perseveringly 
 kept from passing upon the subject of confederation. We have ftlso stated with truth that 
 the last election turned entirely upon confederation. I have he.ird rr-on venture to assert 
 that other issaes entered into that eloctiwn, but men who say this will state anything. No 
 man living before or during the election, can venture to deny the fact that confederation 
 was the great queBtion which excited the people from one end of the province to the other. 
 Now there is another clause which tells us that these colonies were, in the opinion of the 
 people Oi Nova Scotia, united to each other by a connection bett?r and superior to that ot 
 any confederation that could be devised even upon the fairest .ind wisest terms. I believe 
 that to be literally true. It is a matter of political opinion. J have always thought that 
 the system of confederatio.t was the worst by which we could be united. It is imnossible 
 so to regulate the conflicting interests of the diflferent countries in a nianner that will pre- 
 vent conflicts and d'^ficulties arising. If you leave to the several countries their indivi- 
 duality and allow them to retain their local legislatures whilst you attempt to combine 
 them at the same time und^r one general Iiead, *he experiment will be fatal — in time ii 
 must and will end in civil war and tlie shedding of blood. I believe that has been the ex- 
 perience of the world with respect to confederation. The provinces have now five govern- 
 ments instead of three. If they were really united they would bo stronger, inasmuch a« 
 the whole is stronger than the part«, tiiey would have one head, one legislature, one reve- 
 nue, one set of laws, one tariff. On the other hand, for the reasons I have previously given 
 the system of confederation is, in reality, the worst that could be devised for these Colo- 
 ciss, if the wish is to promote harmony and prosperity among them. ' 
 
 We shall pass these resolutions, and we may, if necessary, add one or two more; and 
 when we have done bo, it is the design of the Government and House to send Delegates to 
 {Dngland as soo:' as we can, to submit to the Queen an humble Address, embracing the sub 
 <tta<ace of these resolutions ; and I have much pleasure in announcing, po far as I am able 
 <o judge, ray belief and conviction tlmt the Delegation cannot possibly fail of success. 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SPEEECH, 
 
 ON CLOSING THE DKBATE ON THE REPEAL RESOLUTIONS IN THE HOUSE OF 
 ASSEMBLY, ON THURSDAY, 20th FEBRUARY, 1868. 
 
 Hon. AjTorNET Genebal said : — I am happy that at last this debate, vhioh is the 
 most important that ever occurred in the Legislative halls of this Province is about be- 
 ing brought to a close. In the remarks which it will be my duty to offer to the Housf 
 I will not imitate the tempestuous oratory of the learned and honorable gentleman who has 
 just resumed his chair, but I shall endeavor as calmly ard coolly as is possible to review 
 him and his discourse. I will not notice the amendments which he has offered, because 
 in sustaining the resolutions which I submitted I must necessarily refute his, as they were 
 introduced for the purpose of contradicting mine. I cannot of course admit the soundness 
 of the constitutional law which those amendments embody, and I do not belie vg they arc 
 altogether accurate as to iacts. I shall however treat the honorable and learned men>- 
 ber with the utmost possible courtesy, and shall ^ndea\or as far as possible to indorse 
 his own estimate of himself. He tells us that he is a very profound lawyer — I intend to 
 admit it ; — he says he is very brave — the terror of all his enemies- -I will admit that also, 
 — he is a hero. But there is one perfection which 1 fear I cannot concede to the honor- 
 able gentleman, I am not prepared to admit that he is a very good logician. His dia- 
 lectics are a little disordered, and I fear that in the multiplicity of his studies he has not 
 paid a great deal of attention to the art of logic. The first of the resolutions wliinh I 
 laid on the table asserts the somewhat self-evident proposition that the Legislature of 
 » this country, having been elected to make laws, statute! and ordinances, under a written 
 commission or charter, had no power or authority to effect an alteration or abridgement 
 of the constitution. That was a proposition, one would suppose, that was too self-evident 
 to be controverted, and I ask, Mr. Speaker, how the learned member from Inverness has 
 attempted to controvert H ? He has done so by referring to the Imperial Parliament, 
 and saying in effect : — " Because the Imperial Parliament possesses the power to alter 
 the constitution, therefore the inferior Parliament of Nova Scotia has the same authori- 
 ty." Ho need not have given himself the trouble to search for precedents and authori- 
 ties to sustain his view of the power of the Parliament of Great Britain, for who ever 
 doubted or questioned the extent of that power? The Parliamer.t of that country is the 
 •upreme power in the land, — it stands above everything and can therefore do as it pleases. 
 It is absolute within itself, and there in no power within tlie constitution that can review 
 its acts and statutes. Consequently wlun the Queen, Lords and Commons of England 
 have determined to make an alteration in the constitution they were at perfect liberty to 
 do so, for the simple reason that there is no authority superior to theirs that can ques- 
 tion what they have dont. But is that the case in this country? What sort of a con- 
 ■titution have the people of Nova Scotia? A written constitution and charter, given to 
 them through the commission of the Governor of the Province in 1747, and composed 
 likewise of a number of instructions in despatches, which I have carefuDy examined, but 
 which I shall not read to the House. That charter defines the Legislature of the Province 
 to consist of a Governor quasi king, a council quasi Lords, and a House of Representa- 
 tives qnasi Commons, and confers authority upon it to make laws, statutes and ordin- 
 anoes for the peace, order and good government of the colony. Tliis constitution 
 is defined and written like that of the United States, and our Parliament consisting 
 of Governor, Council and Assembly have no power to legislate beyonii the authority con- 
 ferred on them by the coiumission or letters patent. Therefore it is possible for a sta- 
 tute of this Legislature to be void and there is a power which can declare it so. In order 
 to illustrate this position let us suppose that ..:e Legislature of Nova Scotia passed an 
 act authorising the Legislature of Prince Edward Island to tax the people of Nova Scotia. 
 They would have the power practically and defaeto to put such a law on the statute 
 book, but I ask if that statute would ' not be Toid? I ask if the peopU of 
 
18 
 
 ♦+ 
 
 Nova Scotia could be taxed under an act passed in Prince Edward Island and by the authq^- 
 ty of such a statute ? Let us suppose for a moment that by virtue of the Legislative 
 power conferred on them by this Parliament, the Legislature of Prince Edward Island 
 imposed a stamp duty such as Canada has taken the liberty of imposing on us, — and 
 suppose that a gentleman in Nova Scotia had given to another a note of hand which the 
 law of Prince Edward Island declared void unless stamped and that an action was brought 
 upon it, — the maker of the note pleads the statute of Prince Edward Island, and what 
 would the Supreme Court say? Would not the Supreme Court have the power to de- 
 cide that the Legislature of Nova Scotia had transgressed its authority in passing such a 
 law, conferring on a foreign legislature the power to tax our people ? Would not the 
 judges refer to this charter and declare the stamp act void? That undoubtedly would 
 be the decision, and if the judges did not decide so they would conduct themselves in 
 opposition to the plainest principle? of justice and common sense. If they did not decide 
 so the party to wliom the note v as given would appeal to the Privy Council, and how 
 long would such a law be allowed to disgrace the statute book of Nova l^cotia. There- 
 fore the Cv mparison between the two Parliaments was entirely inapplicable. The Legis- 
 lature of Nova Scotia as compared with that of Great Britain is like a mosquito 
 compared with an elephatit. There is a remarkable resemblance between them, — the 
 mosquito has a long trunk as we sometimes know when he penetrates our flesh and 
 causes no little irritation of our nerves, and so has the elephant. The elephant could 
 take a man up on his trunk and pitch him on his back, and if I asserted that the mosqui- 
 to could not do the same, following his process of reasoning in the present case, the 
 learned gentleman would contradict me and refer to the elephant in proof of his opinion. 
 The reasoning in the one case is as good as that in the other, and when the honorable 
 gentleman undertook to cast a doubt on the authortiy of Lord Mansfield I am again in- 
 voluntarily but forcibly reminded of the mosquito and the elephant. I think I have 
 shown plainJy that there is no comparison between the two Legislatures, — I have shown 
 that it does not follow that because the Imperial Parliament can alter the constitution, 
 the Parliament of Nov. Scotia can do so too. But he has asserted that the Legislature 
 of Nova Scotia had repeatedly altered the Constitution. There I am at issue again with 
 the honorable member as to the facts. This Legislature has in no single instance altered 
 the constitution but has always enacted its laws within the rdi«f;e of the constitutional 
 authority conferred by the charter and the instructions of which 'i. have spoken. •' But," 
 says the honorable member for Inverness, " has not this Legislatun- oliered the polUiig 
 ♦lislricts throughout the country ? Have they not increased the representation of one 
 county and lessened that of another? and is this not an alteration of the constitution?" 
 My answer is, no. These were no violations of the constitution. At the time when the 
 Governor was ordered to call our assembly for the purpose of makic£ laws there was no 
 subdivision into counties, the country was sparsely populated, no survey had been made 
 and as a consequence the Province was as it were all one country. The instructions 
 trom the home government tell the Governor and Council, in calling together the Legis- 
 lature to make such distiibution of the seats as they thought proper, so that they acted 
 tinder the constitution throughout. When the country was subdivided into townships 
 and counties it became necessary to alter the representation and thus the whole prc^eed- 
 ings to which he refers are strictly within the limits of constitutional authority. Then 
 again the honorable member referred to the case of Cape Breton and aaked, " Did not 
 the King in council by proclamation unite Cape Breton and Nova Scotia?" He did ; and 
 that circumstance goes to maintain the line of argument which I have adopted. What 
 was the condition of Cape Breton? She was a conquered colony, and from the time of 
 the conquest of Louisburg was held by the sovereign of England as his estate in fee sim- 
 ple. The King had the whole legislative power in himself and he chose to gorern tl^e 
 colony, as a crown coiony, under certain regulations made by himself, through a Gorer- 
 noT and Council. The Parliament of England or that part of it consisting of Lords and 
 Commons had nothing to do with the matter, for as I said the King -tras owner of Cape 
 Breton. He did not give it the same charter as he gave to Granada and the older colo- 
 nies, but continued to rule it as sole legislator until he thought proper to confer the privi- 
 leges that he had conferred an Nova Scotia. The honorable gentleman will not pretend 
 to say that Cape Breton ever had an assembly or any body resembling a legislature to 
 make law ^or the country. When the King thought proper to annex the island to this 
 Province he did not infringe tilie laws of Nova Scotia but imparted the blessingf of tll« 
 constitution of Nova Scotia to his subjects in Cape Breton, and when the people of th# 
 island foolishly objected to the transfer and went home with their case to the Judioiarj' 
 of England, they were told and told properly '*the King owns yon and as he thought 
 proper to dispose of you he had a right to do so because he held you in absolute 
 sovereignty/' That illustration therefore goes to support my argument. Then agijiii 
 the honorable member asked us if the Legislature of Nova Scotia did not confer unirer- 
 sal suffVage-on the people and in doing so change fhe constitution? I reply no. Itwiii 
 not* Legislature that gave universal suffirage; the original commission was to tiie 
 
14 
 
 •'plr.ntf>r8 and freeholders," and they alone in conjunction wirli the Governor and €oan' 
 cii bould make laws. The Governor represented the sovereign and the sovereign had 
 retained in his hands power to abrogate any statute ot the LCtjislature. He had retained 
 all the powers which he did not confer on tlie people of Nova Scotia, and those powers were* 
 by no means inconsiderable. Having then given the privilege of legislation to the plan- 
 ters and freeholders he had a right afterwards to give that privilege to the rest of tlie 
 people. Therefore without violating the constitution, but in the exercise of her royal 
 authority, by assenting to an act ot our Parliament the Queen extbnded the privilege, 
 formerly limited to the freeholders and planters, to the householders and other inhabitants 
 of the country. We were told that on another occasion the whole constitution was 
 convulsed and overthrown by a sort of political earthquake, — that the whole of 
 the old council of twelve who exercised legislative and executive functions wer» 
 ditmissed by a single stroke of the pen of the Colonial minister, and that 
 thus a complete revolution was effected. In that statement of the ease tlie 
 hon. member is greatly mistaken. Whose council was that? It wi\8 the same 
 Council that the King had ordered to be summoned when he gave the Charter to Lord 
 Cornwallis. That Charter ordered the Governor to select and choose a Council who 
 should hold office at the will of his Majesty. These twelve Councillors were tlie 
 legal successors of the first Councillors, and at the time they were dismissed were 
 holding their seats at the Council Board at the pleasure of the King or Queen, and 
 were liable to be called upon at any moment, as they were on the revision of our insti- 
 tutions, to resign their Comissions and give place to substitutes. So that in no one oi 
 those cases was onr constitution invaded. 
 
 But the argument of the hon. member assumed a position which is by no mcan» 
 granted, and that is that in the case of Confederation our Constitution was changed by 
 our Legislature. He assumed that to be a fact which is not consistent with the truth. 
 The legislature of Nova Scotk. has never been a party to the British North America 
 Act nor has it ever recognise d that act as Imving any force or obligation on the people 
 of Nova Scotia. Upon that point our statute book is completely dumb — the British 
 North America Act is not raffled or confirmed by any statute of ours, and without some 
 such Statute the people and legislature could not have expressed a desire to be connected 
 with Canada. These are arguments for the people of England, and for the constituti' 
 onal lawyera of that great country, — they will pass from my lips to the Crown Officer* 
 of England. The constitutional lawyers of Nova Scotia have shewn themselves unable 
 to deal with the question, and we would have supposed that when all the leading Barris- 
 ters of Nova Scotia, as has been stated, are Confederate, it is strange that among them 
 all there has not been a man able to produce anything in the shape of nn argument, or 
 bearing the slightest resemblance to an argument. I shall state the case most simply, 
 so that it will be plain to the meanest understanding, and I assert that tliroughout tlie 
 debate in the Legislature and throughout the press of the country with the immense 
 array of professional talent which has been spoken of not a man has been able to state 
 anything like a simple and reasonable proposition in favor of Confederation, and 
 against the arguments wliich I have advanced. J. will first turn attention to that great 
 leading case which was decided, not by Lord Mansfield alone, but by the whole King's 
 Bench of England, and which stands on the books an incontrovertible leading case on 
 the subject. I mean the case of Hall and Campbell. The hon. member for Inverness 
 talk ^d of Lord Mansfield, and seemed to insinuate that his authority was not of the 
 highest character, and ■vhen I heard him I was a little astonished, I must confess. That 
 astonishment is Increased when I reflect who Lord Mansfield was, — that he was decid- 
 edly and without exception the greatest Jurist who ever sat on the bench of England. 
 Lord Coke was eminent in the Common Law like Lord Mansfield, but the latter had 
 travelled much fUrther than Coke, — he had gone on a voyage of discovery all round the 
 world of jurisprudence, critically examining and mastering the systems of, Kome, 
 Greece, and Palestine, — he was a most accomplished scholar, a mau of the finest intel- 
 lect and the highest integrity. There never was a magistrate on the Bench who dis- 
 charged his duties more satisfactorily and with greater credit since the world began, 
 and yet that is the man of whom the hon. and learned member presumes to speak 
 slightingly. Why, Sir, as compareo' with Mansfield, the best lawyers in this Province 
 are as the half hatched eaglets compared with the full grown bird that soars almost to 
 the limits of the atmosphere to gaze with unflincing eye on the dazzling radiance of the 
 meridian sun. What was that case of Granada in which the decision of the King's 
 Bench was given? The king had conquered the country, — Granada had yielded to ^e 
 royal arms, und in April, 1764, the king by a Commissioga (the same, I believe, as that 
 conferred on this country through Lord Cornwallis, for Lord Mansfield in his decision 
 cites the very words which conferred legislative powers on Nova Scotia, and the charter 
 to Granada has, besides, the words "in like manner as we have conferred similar 
 powers on the rest it our Colonies," or to that effect, shewing that the chc-.rters were all 
 copied from one o iginal,) under the great serl of England conferred on tho people of 
 
15 
 
 ♦ * 
 
 Granada the privilege of self-government. He had at that moment supreme legislative 
 power over the country, — it was his own country in right of his sovreignity, — he was its 
 supreme legislator, and, as Lord Mansfield says, could have put to death every inhabi- 
 tant, or have given any kind of government he pleased. By that Commission, in April, 
 1764, he divested himself of his legislative power. The Sovereign, it will be seen, is, 
 as regards ker rights and property, no more than another individual, — she has her rights, 
 the people theirs. These rights are perfectly distinct and well defined bv the Consti- 
 tution, and the Queen can no more interfere with the rights of the Province' than tlie 
 Province can interfere with her prerogatives. Tne two are perfectly distinct and inde- 
 pendent, excepting that the relations of sovereign and subject exist botwe n them. In 
 July, 1734,- the same king by letters patent undertook to exercise the legislative powers 
 fciraself, by imposing a tax upon the trade of Granada. A merchant who had paid the 
 tax came to England, and sued the Collector for money received to his use, or as for 
 money illegally exacted. The action was tried in Westminster Hall, and after four 
 most solemn arguments by the ablest constitutional lawyers, a decision was arrived "^t. 
 And what was that decision ? That the king, having put his seal to the commission of 
 Governor Melville, and conferred legislative power on Granada, had deprived himself 
 of the power of legislation,— that he had thereby irrecoverably lost the power of legis- 
 lation, — that therefore his subsequent Act was void, and the plaintiff thereupon recov- 
 ered his money. That was the decision arrived at after the fullest deliberation, after 
 the rnost mature consideration, and after the exercise of the first constitutional talent in 
 Great Britain. The tax was held void, and why wrs it void ? Simply because the 
 King's seal estopped him from levying sueh a tax. He had in April sealed a commission 
 nuthorizing the people to tax themselves, and in July, when he issued his letters patent 
 to levy the tax, they were declared void, because he was estopped by the first seal from 
 issuing the subsequent letters patent. My argument, which I shall now commence 
 shall be succinctly stated, and I shall endeavor to make it as clear as possible. But 
 wishing to argue logically, I shall take the liberty of making two postulates. I shall 
 demand it to be admitted in the first place that the people of Nova Scotia were never 
 consulted as to whether tUey would part with their constitution or not. That is the first 
 postulate, and let any man deny it who dares. 
 
 In 18GS the losi elections preceding those of 18th September, 1867, were held ; at that 
 time the Canadian Quebec Scheme was not concocted. Therefore the question of Con- 
 federation was not before the people, and they did not puss upnn it. Now the hon. 
 member for Inverness became angry with some one for using the term " blacklegs," as 
 applied to some of the statesmen of Nora Scotia. I do not like calling names but'it Ib 
 lingular that that very name has been applied by English travellers to the politicians of 
 Canada. I thinx it is Mr. Trollope who has said tliat in that country the term 
 '* politician " is synonymous with " blackleg.'^ As I said, I do not like to call names but 
 it is impossible to get on without calling things by their proper terms. How can I oth- 
 erwise explain what I nnan in referring to those Canadian schemers who stealthily 
 eoncocted a plan for the subjugation of the people of Nova Scotia — the men who tried by 
 bribery and corruption to jockey us out of our rights. Is the word inapplicable ? I think 
 not,— it is the most appropriate, and I say that the men who conducted these practices 
 would be horsewhipped off any race-course in England as blacklegs. Our political knaves 
 are not entitled, sir, to have such mild language applied to thera, — they deserve sometning 
 worse. There may have been some excuse for the blacklegs of Canada to lay hold of 
 the revenue of Nova Scotia, but where is the excuse for the statesmen of this Pi-ovince 
 who aided and assisted those men in destroying the liberties of the people ? How shall 
 I characterise such men as these ? Men who, keeping the people from passing on a sub- 
 ject of such vital consequence to their interests, had the wickedness and cruelty in the 
 dark and behind their backs to destroy the vights of their countrymen. Political assas- 
 sins would be the name for them, and when I heard the honorable member for Inverness 
 mention the name of Judas Iscariot I thought the association was discreditable to the 
 celebrated traitor. Judas brought back the money,— iio was therefore an honest man 
 when compared with them. We will never catch one of those men bringing back th6 
 price of his treason. Judas also repented and showed himself a considerate man when 
 out of a duo regard for the best interests of his country Lo went and hanged himself. 
 Those politicians have not the manliness to imitate his exaniple and to commit such an 
 act of self-inflicted Justice. That, Mr. Speaker, is my opinion. The honorable and" 
 learned member cited the conduct and language of Sir Robert Peel as authority. I id 
 not wonder at his doing so for I do not now wonder at anything,-— such amazing tbtngs 
 do occur now-a-days that wonders have ceafied. The spirit of amazement died within 
 me when I heard tbe honorable member. Who was Sir Robert Peel? He was a great 
 scholar, an English gentleman, a highly educated man and an orater, but he was a rat. 
 For thirty years he headed a party and then wheeled round and joined his adtersarids. 
 And are not the gentlemea whose conduct I have been citicising all rats^-poliUcal ror^ 
 min ? Was there one of them true to his political colors f I do not now of course refer 
 
16 
 
 to gentlcroen present. It is said that birds of a feather flock togcther,'^anitna1s of somo 
 some species also become gregarious, and it well known that rat does not dislike the 
 smell of rat. Sir Robert Peel descended into the grave as damaged a statesman as whs 
 ever cited as an authority. But the reference was made to prove what nobody ever 
 denied : that the Parliament of England can do as it pleases. The next position which I 
 take as a postulate is that we have on our Statute book no Statute rarifying or confirm* 
 ing the British North America Act. Witli these two postulates I proceed to show that 
 the British North America Act is unconstitutional and void and in no manner binds the 
 people of Nova Scotia. And I may say that if we had had in our administration men of 
 high principle — men having any consideration for the rights of the country, when the 
 Queen's Proclamation made its appearance on the 1st of July our public property would 
 not have been handed over to Canada, our railroads would be still in our hands, — our 
 revenues would have been still collected by ourselves and we should not have had the 
 disgrace of coming practically under the operation of that detestable statute. But the 
 enemies of the country had paved the way for it* introduction by putting into power just 
 the men to accomplish their iniquitous design. That is tile reason w'hy we are placed 
 under a dominion in which de jure we are not and do not intend to be. My argument is 
 this : in 1713, after a British General had conquered Port Koyal, now[called Annapolis, 
 which means the city of Anne, the treaty of Utrecht was made between the Queen and 
 Louis XIV, by which the King ol France yielded the conquest to the Queen of England, 
 and thus Nova Scotia became the absolute property of the Queen, and she an^i she alone 
 could thereaiter legislate for this country. The House of Commons had no authority 
 over Nova Scotia then nor now. They represent the people of England, — not a part of 
 them as was said, for it would appear by the argument of the honorable member that 
 the Catholics were unrepresented before the Emancipation Acts were carried, — they 
 were always represented, — the House of Commons represents every man, woman and 
 child in the British Isles, even the cattle and horses — everything from the grass upwards. 
 The representation in Parliament is complete and why ? Because the members of the 
 House of Commons are chosen by the people of England. But did they ever represent 
 Nova Scotia? Never ; because the people of Nova Scotia had no voice in their election. 
 Did the House of Lords represent the people of Nova Scotia? No; they represented 
 the landed and irist^ratical interests of Great Britain but they never represented the 
 interests of Nova Scotia and had no power nor authority to make laws for us. The 
 whole legislative power was in Queen Anne and her heirs and successors under the title 
 of Louis XIV. and the arms of the British soldiery. That Legislative power seems to 
 have been un«'xercised until 1747, when George II., by his Royal Charter divested him- 
 self of his right of legislation. To the full extent to which the charter goes he deprived 
 himself of the power to legislate for Nova Scotia. I do not say that by that act the 
 King's whole legislative power ceased, — all the powers which he did not give he retained 
 hut such as he did give his seal would not allow him to take back, binding him as the 
 seal of any other man or any member of this House would, him and his heirs foreven 
 All who are in privity of estate witli him are bound and thus Queen Victoria is bound by 
 it. Having transferred the Legislative power to the people of Nova Scotia he could not 
 take it back. 
 
 The case of ffall vs. Campbell proves that if the King had subsequently attempted to 
 legislate for Nova Scotia by letters patent — which is the most solemn deed of the Sove- 
 reign — the letters patent would have been void. Now, I contend that when the Queen 
 of England attempted to legislate for Nova Scotia by Act of Parliament, that act is void, ' 
 This is an assertion which I make in the face of the constitutional lawyers of Europe. 
 If the Queen could not sign letters patent by way of legislation, she could aot legislate 
 by Act of Parliament. The Lords and Commons had no part in the matter; what they 
 did was notlung, — it did not alter the case, for they had no authority over '^he laiid, and*.! 
 never had and never will have until we are represented in their bodies. What did theyi; 
 do? They merely sat beside the Queen and assisted her in doing what she had no right '> 
 to do. If she had the right to pass that statute, the Lords and Commons merely assent- 
 ed. As if I, being the owner of a lot of land in fee simple, and being disposed to convey 
 it, asked you, Mr. Speaker, and the gentleman who sits beside me. to join in the deed, 
 and I wrote it in this form : " This Indenture, made between the Speaker, my hon. 
 friend, and myself of the one part, and the purchaser of the other part, witnesseth, &c." 
 The deed transfers my land in fee simple, but have the other parties who were joined )'^ 
 transferred the title? By no means ; the title passes because I, the owner of the land^t ' 
 signed the deed. The signature of the others was a mere matter of form, and conreyed ' ' 
 nothing. And so, if the Queen of England had had the power, when that statute was" 
 passed, to legislate for Nova Scotia, and the Lords and Commons joined her^ it would :. 
 merely have been for formts sake; and I with it to be distinctly understood as part otr 
 my argument that the Lorda and Commons had nothing to do witb tills country. The' < 
 hon. member opposite haa asserted tiie very bold proposition that no act of the Imperial' •. 
 FMrlUment w«»,ever dediured Toid. Here I join issue with him. I will ahow him tha^u. 
 
statutes of that Parliament have been declared void in the most solemn manner imsnin- 
 able. In 1774 or 1775 the Parliament of Great Britain took the liberty to pass a Stamp 
 Act and a Tea Duties Act to bind the American colonies. Now, let ii be borne in mind 
 tlv.t if those Acts had been passed to bind England, no power could set them aside ; but 
 'vhen they were passed to bind the Colonies, those statutes were declared void because 
 they were void on the principles which I have stated. And who declared them void? 
 The Thirteen Colonies of America declared them void, as the people of N-^va Scotia are 
 now declaring the British North America Act void, — the armies 0/ Congress declared 
 them void, — the King of France declared them void, and with his army helped to give 
 judgment against the King of England, — the King of Heaven declared them void because 
 they ^ are void in truth and justice. Lastly, George III. was himself forced into the 
 humiliating necessity of declaring them void by acknowledging the Colonies to be free 
 sovereign and independent States. In 1783 those statutes were given up in the most 
 formal manner by the King of England, and the whole world since has concurred in the 
 opinion which I have stated. No man with any regard for his character as a constitu- 
 tional lawyer would assert that the decision was not a right one. What led to the 
 great revolution in England and the decapitation of Charles I. ? Was it not the viola- 
 tion of the principle which is violated by this statute ? What is the proposition which 
 the American people contended for? That, having a legislature of their own, they 
 could be taxed by no other power on earth, llepresentation and taxation cannot be 
 separated, — without representation there can be no taxation. On that principle Hamp- 
 den refused to pay the ship money,— when the King said " Give me your sliip money," 
 he answered " No, go to Parliament, — that is the only power that can tax me ; and if 
 you force your hand into my pocket I will draw my sword," as he did, and he died 
 nobly contending for the rights of his country. 
 
 (The usual hour for recess having arrived, the House a^ourned and resumed at 
 3 o'clock, when Hon. Attorney General continued:) 
 
 I wa3 discussing, at the time of the adjournment, the possibility of an Imperial 5tat\' : 
 being declared void, and I think I had shewn pretty conclusively thpt a very importa.^^ 
 Imperial statute had been declared void by the judgment of the first courts on earth, and 
 that when Parliament undertook to violate the constitution by taxing the people of the 
 Colonies whom they do not represent, their statutes and legislation may be void. No 
 principle is so perfectly obvious to the common sense of the House as that if the acts of 
 a Parliament are void, there must be on earth some tribunal before which the vicious- 
 ness of such legislation may be declared. It is very seldom that that great legislature 
 has attempted to trample on the rights of the Colonies, — its leading characteristic has 
 been kindliness, — it has always extended the right hand of fellowship to us, and has 
 ever treated us with the utmost consideration and benevolence ; but it might possibly 
 on some occasions be tempted to infringe the rights of a Colony. We contend that it 
 has done so on the present occasion;' that when the Imperial legislature passed a 
 statute creating a legislature in Canada to rule over and tax the people of Nova Scotia, 
 silencing the legislature of this country to a certaiu extent, depriving the representatives 
 of the people of Nova Scotia of ceitain powerb, ;nd conferring unlimited powers of 
 taxation on an alien parliament in Canada, that biatute affected fundamentally the laws 
 of the Empire by violating the vested rights of the people of Nova Scotia. I have 
 stated and proved that Imperial legislation has been declared void, — not only by Courts 
 of Justice to whom the question was referred, but by the armies of the United States, 
 • the armies of France, and by the final declaration of the King of England himself; but 
 before that legislation was passed, and while it was passing, it was declared void by the 
 firgt constitutional authorities in England. The famous Chatham heading the opposition 
 to the bills, and every man following him in opposition were found op«nly and publicly 
 declaring the principle which must be admitted as sound : that the Colonies ir. British 
 America, not being, represented in the Imperial Parliament could not be taxed by that 
 Parliament. What is the reason of this principle ? What is Parliament? Parliament 
 is the representation of the people of the country who own the government. ^0 
 whom does the country itself belong ? To the people. The will of the people 
 is the supreme law of the land. Not only in England but in Continental nations the 
 people are the source of all power, — every dynasty, every authority derive'/ its power 
 from the people themsqlves. The people, as I have said, own the country, and the 
 government are their servants. Let us see how far this doctrine has been established. 
 When France bad completely gone mad, had dethroned the hereditary sovereign and 
 murdered him and his family and established a new order of things, what did the British 
 nation do? Did they refuse to treat with the de fcuito government? No, recognising 
 the sovereign principle that the government belongs to the people, the British govern- 
 ment recognised the revolutionary dynasty which the will of the people had created. 
 They recognised the usurper Buonaparte and treated him as the sovereign of France 
 vhen, though a Corsican by birth, he had seized the throne of one of the greatest nations 
 in the world by the force of the bayonet. The principle is recognised in every country 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 that the government belongs to the people, and that the people mould it as they please. 
 The government and Queen of England belong to the people ;— the Queen represents tho 
 majesty of the nation, and if the people of that country thought proper to-morrow to set 
 np a different form of government, — if they were foolish enough to abandon tho finely 
 working and checking principles of their glorious constitution — to send adrift both the 
 Sovereign and the House of Lords and to form a republic it would still bo the govern- 
 ment of England as it was during the Commonwealth. So that there is no principle 
 more clear than that the people own the government and can do with it as they please. 
 It is plain likewise that the government can have no existence except by tho will of 
 t>ie people, — that it cannot maintain itself exoept by their assistance and support, and 
 that the taxes whicli the people of a country contribute to maintain the dynasty or gov- 
 ernment must be their voluntary gifts. 
 
 There is no power in the Constitution for taking a shilling out of a man's pocket;— he only 
 parts with his money by his free will and the process by which the maintenance of government 
 is secured in the British Empire is this: that the people elect representatives with the power 
 of levying taxes. There is no other power known to the constitution which can lay its hands 
 on a man's property in this country. These are the sound principles of the constitution, and 
 we find that in former times the taxes were called benevolences, subsidies, gifts, and a 
 number of other expressions were used to imply, and which all implied that everything which 
 the Crown demanded from the people was their voluntary gift for the purpose of maintaining 
 and carrying on the government. Acting on these principles such men as Chatham and the 
 men of his country, and the Washingtons, the Madisons, tho Jeffersons, the Hamiltons and 
 the Morrises of the United States — men who were political giants compared with the pigmy 
 and crippled Statesmen of the existing colonies, contended with propriety that no Statuta 
 could impose a tax on the Colonies, oecauee the colonies possessed legislatures of their own 
 having the sole and exclasive right to levy taxes on the people. The contest for these princi- 
 ples wap successful and will be so while the Empire remain*. If these principles are sound, 
 and I should like to see the man who can controvert them, what is the position of the British 
 Parliament as regards the British North America Act? I have demanded that the postulate, 
 that the people were not consulted on tho question should be admitted, — I have demanded 
 also that the postulate that there is no act of our own legislature to sanction that statute 
 should be, and it is, admitted. What ther has the Imperial Parliament done 7 Against the 
 will and without the rianction of the people that Parliament has taken the liberty, not only of 
 taxing u: )ut of causing us to be taxed by another power. The complaint against England 
 on the occasion of the Stamp Act was that the Imperial Legislature itself had taxed the peo- 
 ple of the Colonies, without having power and authority. We have a worse complaint than that — 
 «nrs is a much more aggravated case. What we complain of is not that that legislature has at- 
 'tempted to tax us, but that, what is ten thousand times worse, it. ha« put us into the hands of 
 other Colonies, larger, more populous, and more powerful and more extravagant Colonies — 
 €olonies who have no feelings in common with us, who are alien to us, and authorized them to 
 lay their hands on us and tax us at their pleasure. If the Parliament of Oreat Britain had no 
 power to tax us a fortiori ten thousand times, it has no power to create a new legislature in 
 any part of the world with that power. What it has not itself it could not confer on others. 
 Therefore on BricLsh principles the act alluded to is void — it never was law because it violated 
 the lundamental principles of the Constitution, because it imposed taxation on a people whom 
 at had no right to tax. The hon. member for Inverness looks us in the face, and, with an im- 
 mense amount of assurance tells us that we are not taxed by a Parliament in which we are not 
 represented, and he asks, " Are we not represented in the Canadian Parliament?" I ask what 
 right had England to create any Parliament to tax us, giving us just such representation aa 
 she thought proper 7 Is not our representation in the Dominion Parliament an insult to, and * 
 mockery of, the people of Nova Scotia 7 Is not the man who would except such representation, 
 and be satisfied with it, fit for the Lunatic Aqylum 7 How many representatives have the 
 people of Nova Scotia to protect their interests against the Upper Canadians — against the 
 Frenchmen -of Lower Canada — the strangers and foreigners, wbosenames wecannot pronounce 
 — in whose el«otions we take no interest — to whose returns to the Legislature we can make no 
 ■ebjectiou 7 W« have nineteen meu also ; if they were the finest men ever produced on the &09 
 of the earth — the finest statesmen ever known — every one of them as fine an orator and as pro- 
 found a politician as tke hon. member for Inverness — their arguments would notstop thetaxa- 
 tion of Nova Scotia as long as they would be talking. That is the way in which we we 
 represented, and this is the constitution which the hon. member for Inverness has been laboring 
 to defbnd. The people of Nova Scotia, if they accepted such a constitution, would be as abjeot 
 -slaves as the people of Turkey, the ser& of Russia, the fbllahs of Egypt — the most degraded 
 people on the fkce of the earUi. Does the hon. member suppose that the people of flree Nova 
 Scotia will submit with the certain knowledge that the Stotute is void. Why is the Imperial 
 .Statute void? Simply because its preamble ia false. If that preamble were true, no man 
 would be insaqe enough to dispute its validity. If the people of Nova Scotia desired ^nfed- 
 «nition with Canada on the conditions imposed by that Act, and the Queen of England were 
 ' i^illing to eonfederate us, there would have beoi nothing improper or unconstitutioiial in the 
 
19 
 
 ■*♦ 
 
 Iho 
 )et 
 }ly 
 Ihe 
 }n- 
 
 3C. 
 
 of 
 
 >T- 
 
 ily 
 It 
 
 Act. It would not then have required the interference of the Lords and Commons, because the 
 Sovereign, as I have shewn, was the original legislator of Nova Scotia. If the Queen then 
 had expressed a wish to the people of Nova Scotia that they should join in a confederation with 
 Canada, and the people of Canada had assented, and the people of Nova Sootia, on being con- 
 Bultei at the ^ oils, had sent to this House a majority of representatives willing and anxious for 
 the federal union, and a Provincial Statute had confirmed it, the British Statute would have 
 be«n sound and constitutional. 
 
 But that has not been 1 he case, — the Act was passed against the will of the people c*" 
 Nova Scotia. It was not simply pnssed without consulting thenij but passed, after insult- 
 ing them, fraudulently, dishonestly, by falsehood, by misrepresentation, by intrigue, by 
 deception, by every species of criminality, whicii politicians could commit against a 
 country. It was known to the men who went to England on the delegation, that the peo- 
 ple did not want confederation, and that the majority of them were opposed to it. Cor- 
 ruptly undertaking to bind the people of Nova Scotia in that confederation they went to 
 England and falsely informed the Queen, the government and the Parliament of that 
 country that the people desired confederation. A fraud was practised on the people and 
 legislature of England to obtain the passage of the Act, and we know that in law there is a 
 very wholesome principle, thjit "fraud vitiates all things." Ever since the commence- 
 ment of the world fraud has vitiated every human contract and transaction into which it 
 entered. There never has been a man who, having been defrauded out of his rights 
 would not at the first opportunity /e-inv ' himself with those rights, because according to 
 the laws of nature and reason, according to natural justice fraud vitiai-S every transaction. 
 A statute is not exempt from this all-pervrtding principle of equity. A statute, powerful 
 as it is in England, is not, I say, exempt ♦"com that principle, and the people of this conti- 
 nent and of the whole civilized world wili instantly join in one loud chorus to pronounce a 
 statute obtained by fraud to be void. The advocates of Confederation will soon find the 
 truth of the old saying; " honesty is the best policy," — it would have been wiser in tliem, if 
 they expected to gain anything by Confederation, to have submitted the question to the 
 people at once, instei. '. of trusting to force it on us by fraud, deception and misrepresen- 
 tation. These men, however, performed an act of political assassination, and deliberately, 
 in Canada and with Canadian sharpers, concocted a scheme to rob Nova Scotia of her in- 
 dependence. These statements are all true, and I am not ashamed of the truth. I know 
 certain classes in Nova Scotia who are ashamed of the truth, — who have a strong aversion 
 to it, who love the opposite of truth for its own sake and the sake of its c 'pccted fruits, 
 but I am not afraid of Uie trnth, and I say here, that these men wickedly, maliciously and 
 dishonestly conspired to destroy the constitution of Nova Scotia, which the people right- 
 fully prize above all things. If they had not been fools as well as something worse we 
 would have been in an unpleasant condition to day, but it lias been wisely ordained that 
 the rogue is always a fool. If it were not for the folly of the knave lie would never be 
 detected, and therefore it is that the maxim has arisen " honesty is the best policy." If 
 heaven had not aflFected those men with judicial blindness, our liberties would have been 
 lost, but we owe our salvation and the salvation of the constitution to the excessive weak- 
 ness of the men who having banded themselves together for the purpose of aiding the 
 conspirators in Can-xda in the destruction of Nova Scotia, were so silly, such inconceivable 
 political nincompoops, as not to perceive that it required a statute of Nova Scotia to bind 
 the people of Nova Scotia. The same men are unable to rake up a single constitutional 
 argument in support of their position. To this utter ignorance of evciy principle of con- 
 stitutional law Nova Scotia must ascribe her safety. The gentlemen who did us this fa- 
 Tor, chose the Irish job as their model, — they have not even the merit of originality, 
 for their plot is a mere imitation of the other. They had not the wit to conceive a plot of 
 their own, but borrowed from Pitt and Castlereagh. There was, however, only a certain 
 portion which they were capable of borrowing, they could not borrow their wisdom, for as 
 is generally the case with servile imitators of others, they only pick up the faults and de- 
 fects while fliey are unable to copy the perfections or merits of tlieir models. The 
 McCullys, the Archibalds, the Tuppers and the Henrys, and such most worthy characters 
 in imitating Pitt and Castlereagh were able to imitate them only in their vices, — they 
 were as corrupt and even more so, because Pitt and Castlereagh pocketed nothing, while 
 these gentlemen all managed to pocket something, — therefore they were wiser in their 
 generation. They imitated, I say, the faults which rendered that Irish job contemptible 
 in the eyes of the world — which made one of the.iinest people in the world the most unhappy 
 people under the sun. Observe now the vast distinction between the two jobs : — Pitt and 
 Castlereagh after corrupting the Irish Parliament to transfer tb.e legislative power to the Eng- 
 lish Parliament, did not satisfy themselves with an Imperial statute, — they went further and 
 called for an Irish Act of Parliament, making the Irish legislature itself confirm the Act 
 of Union. Mr. Pitt as we all know was a great statesman, and although this Irish tran- 
 saction was a blemish on his character, and evinced an error of judgment and a defect ot 
 morality in thinking that the end coold justify the means, still he had great wisdom, and 
 when he determined to accomplish tiie Union he did so effectually. When he had bound 
 the people of Ireland hand and foot and cast them into Umbo, he tooL care to lock 
 
-..'^^hiji^...^i^.. 
 
 20 
 
 tho door and to walk cffwitu tho key. But our jobbers had not sense enough to bolt 
 the door, — they were in sucli a hurry to enjoy the fruits of confederation, that they did 
 not take time to think how tlio thing should be done, but after shutting us into limbo, the 
 arrant stupidities walked off leaving the door njar and the key sticking '.n the lock, — wo 
 will certainly, therefore open the door and walk out. By tho mercy of Heaven wo fell 
 into the hands of men who did not know what they were about. The hon. member for 
 Inverness cited what I called u somewhat doubtful political character in Peel, who, as I 
 stated before had eminent qualities but the one terrible blemish which I mentioned. If 
 he wanted to find a model I would recommend him to go to Ireland. Kngland never 
 was in tho position of the Colonies, — she never had such occasion to produce model 
 •tatesmeii of the cast of those I have referred to but Ireland was in that condition, — she 
 had been robbed of her Constitution and had produced some men who were more worthy 
 of Imitation than Sir Robert Peel. If he had taken Daniel O'Connell he would hare 
 chosen for his model an honorable and patriotic statesman — a man who loved his country 
 from his cradle to his grave, spending the whole of his most valuable life in contending 
 to get back the constitution of which she was robbed, and a man who died advocating 
 nobly tho cause of Ireland's liberty. He was tho equal of Sir Robert Peel in ability ; 
 as a man and a statesman he was his superior. He also was an orator, and as a patriot he 
 had no equal ; and he went down to an honored grave. If I were to make any mar" 
 my model, I would choose such a man as that, ratb-r than one who having forfeited 
 the character of a steady and consistent statesman, descended into an inglorious grave. 
 If this country were unsuccessful in obtaining repeal, she would be much in the con- 
 dition of Ireland ; and I ask, does the hon. member for Inverness wish to see us in 
 that position ? Does he wish to see in Nova Scotia generation after generation of dis- 
 contented subjects? 
 
 In reference to the treatment which we have received at tho hands of the British Government 
 I must draw a contrast by no means flattering to that Government. If we take up the ile of 
 the despatches, we shall see with what care, correctness and impartiality the Ministers of 
 George II. treated Nova Scotia when Governor Lawrence thought he could do very well without 
 an Assembly. They said '* the King had pledged his royal word to Nova Scotia that its peo- 
 ple should have a House of Assembly on the model of tho British House of Commons, and we 
 command you forthwith to summon the House." The Governor made various excuses — ho 
 thought he could do very well without the Asfeembly ; but they answer him, " We command 
 you to execute tho royal promises, because we will not have those promises forfeited." They 
 told him that this command was the last instruction he was to receive. That is the way In 
 which this country was treated in those days; but how have the Ministers of Queen Victoria 
 treated this Province ? I am sorry to say a word to the prejudice of those great men, and I am 
 irillinjif to belitve that, bemg doubtful of the confidence of the House of Commons, they had 
 enough to engage their thoughts at home without looking into the affairs of the Colonies. I 
 am willing to make every excuse for the Imperial Ministers, — they were told, it is true, by 
 persous from this country, whom they mistook for gentlemen, that Nova Scotia most 
 aoiciously desired to be confederated, and that the scheme would be satisfactory to all con- 
 '.med. But I must pause here and make this observation. In a matter of such transcen- 
 ua.it importance, involving the fate of this, the noblest portion of the Empire, these meti 
 Ri-e chargeable with gross negligence, — they should not have been satisfied with the word 
 of any man, but should have so framed the Act of Union that the people and legislature 
 of this country would have been consulted upon its details. They should have sent it out 
 with a suspendmg clause to prevent its coming into operation until the people had been 
 heard at the polls, and our Parliaments had ratified it clause by clause. They are charge- 
 able, I say, with negligence in not doing so, and if they are compelled, from the necessity 
 of their position, to draw back and revise their steps — to admit the soundness of the 
 arguments which I am using to-day as to the invalidity and unconstitutionality of that 
 Act, they must get up in Parliament and state that they were wrong. I have such an 
 opinion of the high-mindedness and integrity of that administration, that I believe they 
 will embrace the earliest opportunity of making reparation to the people of Nova Scotia, 
 whose rights they have treated with too much indifference. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask what the condition of this country would b« if we accept- 
 ed confederation. We would be absolutely at the disposal of the Canadian Parliament. 
 They can tax unlimitedly the people of Nova Scotia, excepting that they cannot put a tax 
 tipon land. They took our railroads, our fisheries, our public buildings and our revenues, 
 but were kind enough not to take Nova Scotia itself up to Canada, they had the kindness 
 to make 'that exception. That would be the condition of this country, and let me.ask who 
 are the Canadians that the noble and loyal people of Nova S(!otia should be made subject 
 to them"? What temptation have we to enter into a confederation with them f Has Nova 
 Scotia ever forfeited her constitution by rebellion 1 Has the blood of Englishmen ever 
 discolored her soil ? Can Canada give the same answer to these questions that we can 
 give? Did not Canada rebel against the Pritish authority 1 Did not the Canadians 
 alay British soldiers on their soil. Did they not stone, murder and mutilate a British offi- 
 cer while in the discharge of his duty ; and does not the innocent blood of that officer, like 
 
21 
 
 4.4. 
 
 the blood of Abel, cry from the ground ? Does it not loudly warn us to have nothing to do 
 with 8uch men ? IIow long shall vro be subject to that French population in Canada 
 which has stereotyped itself as a separate nationality in the Act of Union ? That is one of 
 the greatest follies of the scheme. They have created an imperiuminimperio ; — while 
 power is given to the Canadian Parliament to trample on the rights of Nova Scotia and 
 Now Brunswick, the rights of tljo French Canadians are not to be touched. There is to 
 be a French nation in our midst, controlling the loyal people of Nova Scotia. Is there a 
 man in this House who would submit to such an indignity ? I think there are hardly too 
 men in the Province who would willingly yield to such a degradation as that. 
 
 In this debate wo have been asked a very serious and important question which I shall 
 endeavour to answer. We were triumphantly asked, "suppose when you go to England 
 with your address you fail of success, what then?" For my own part I see no difficulty 
 in the question. In the first place we will call on the Queen of England, wiio is tho first 
 constitutional Sovereign on the face of tho earth, we will submit to her a statement of our 
 case in which we will shew her that we have a right to have our constitution restored; 
 and we will ask her to be pleased to recognise the simple unquestionable right of tho peo- 
 ple of Nova Scotia to enjoy their independent constitution as it was before the act was 
 passed. I know that a number of gabblers say " #ie British Go' ornment will not do this, 
 Miat and the other,"— lam a reasoning man and I know that the Queen and her ministers 
 are reasoning people and I believe that when we have submitted to tho Queen the casb 
 which I have presented to the public to-day, she will not hesitate to say to the people of 
 Nova Scotia, " you have been most grossly insulted and ill-treated— my ministry have 
 been completely deceived — your constitution must be immediately restored." I have no 
 more doubt that such will be Her Majesty's language than that I am addressing the House. 
 But suppose that insanity should overcome Her Majesty, which God forbid, and that she 
 should eay to our delegates, " go back to Nova Sco#i and tell your people that they have 
 lost their liberties it is true, that they have been made tho most abject slaves on tho face 
 of the earth, but it is done and cannot be helped. Then, sir, we will go immediately to tho 
 Houses of Lords and Commons, we will instruct our delegates to apply there and to em- 
 ploy the first counsel in Europe to appear at tlie bar of those Houses there to advocate the 
 unconstitutionality of the statute as was done in the case that I referred to in the King's 
 Bench. We may fairly expect a favorable reply to such an appeal, for I do not think that 
 the Lords of England — the high-minded noblemen who dignify the position of spiritual and 
 temporal Peers of the realm, will turn a deaf ear to the petition of the loyal people of Nova 
 Scotia. Do you suppose that they have such things as McCullys and Tuppers in that 
 House ? Will that House, which is the embodiment of honor, say " pooh, pooh, go back, 
 yo\i have got liberty enough, the French Canadians will take care of you f" No, sir, but 
 rising with indignation the members of Parliament will say with one accord, " how dare 
 you, Mr. Watkin, mislead the Parliament of England by saying that the people were con- 
 sulted at the poUs 1 Give your authority for the assertion.'' But suppose that the Lords 
 and Commons also became so far infatuated and intoxicated as under any circumstances 
 to refuse to consider our rights, what next? I will tell the people what next: wo will 
 then try the Judiciary of England. I will get some gentleman to give me a note of hand 
 for £300 sterling without a stamp,— if he refuses to pay the note because it lacks the 
 stamp, I will sue him and take a special verdict setting forth the condition and constitution 
 of Nova Scotia, tiie Governor's Commission or Charter, the Royal Instructions, the Im- 
 perial Statute, — setting forth •also that the people of Nova Scotia were never consulted at 
 the polls on the question, and tliat there is no statute in our Statute book referring to the 
 union; and then if the judges of Nova Scotia place themselves in such a position that the 
 gates of tlie Temple of Justice are closed against the plaintiff in that action by deciding 
 that the note is not recoverable, 1 will appeal to the Privy Council, employi.ig there the 
 ablest counsel in Europe to advocate our rights. Poor as we are we will find the means to 
 have our case thoroughly sifted before that high tribunal, and if that body should decide 
 against us then we will go to the House of Lorjjs as the highest appellate court in the Em- 
 pire, asd take the decision there of tho ablest lawyers in the world. And then, sir, if our 
 noble cause be rejected what next ? Will wo rebel against the Queen of England ■? No, 
 but when the Queen rebels against us and abdicates her authority over Nova Scotia by re- 
 fusing to invest us with our rights, she will discharge us from our allegiance. But the 
 act will be her own and we will be a free people. I do not wish to see such a state 
 of things, and I hope that it may not occur, but if it should the Queen of England 
 will have abdicated her Koyal functions as far as this country is concerned. Protection 
 and allegiance are reciprocal duties, — if we owe allegiance to the Queen it is because 
 she owes protection to us, and if she suffers our rights to be wrested from us, then, 
 like James II, she will have abdicated the throne as far as we are concerned. The 
 British Parliament pronounced that James, having violated the constitutional laws of 
 the realm, had abdicated the throne, and if the Queen should place herself in that po- 
 sition what could we do ? We must then become a republic or wh. '.tever other species 
 of nationality we may desire to form ourselves into, and call upori the United States 
 to guarantee the liberties of Nova Scotians, the finest people on the face of the earth. 
 The United States, France, even England herself, Italy, Russia, Prussia or Austria, 
 
uiltSBKBa 
 
 11 
 
 would ..mj guarantee fte '"'"frbfr^'Jurt^.'Sf utro^rr.hwXn' 
 
 5f M;Sno^3t«o» o£.r r.. ;i-.,-- u^o ». -3 
 
 dignified rosignation. We should ^^e* ^rop arounu "" , ^ .^ t 
 
 assaasini at the base of Pompey'a •tatue. 
 
 
 Ui 
 
 ! \ 
 
wlow 
 iieni 
 our 
 iroad 
 with 
 acted 
 must 
 rs of 
 
 tl> 
 
 ('t 
 
 irrn -n r-fiti rf^tlf Bmam—*"**"'—'