Of IKf. >»' IMlIKJH BRITISH COLUMBIA. LEGISLATIVE COITECIL. DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF CONFEDERATION WITH CANADA. REPRINTED FROM THE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY OF MARCH, 1870. TFE! GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. VICTORIA, B.C. : Printed by William H. Cullin, Printer to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty. 1912. BRITISH COLUMBIA Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. LE( MW University of Illinois Library -2 1354 CONFI REPRINT L161— H41 1HL PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. VICTORIA, B.C. : Printed by William H. Cullin, Printer to the King’s Most Excellent 1912. rciL. iNADA. ORDINARY Majesty. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF CONFEDERATION WITH CANADA. REPRINTED FROM THE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY OF MARCH, 1870. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. VICTORIA, B.C. : Printed by William H. Cullin, Printer to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty. *3L *a Co£j 124?. . Cj( tiv. 34a .1 n M3*n cL in w i 01 MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Session 1870. Hon. Philip Hankin, Colonial Secretary and Presiding Member. Hon. Henry Peking Pellew Crease, Attorney-General. Hon. Joseph William Trutch, Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works. Hon. Wymond Ogilvy Hamley, Collector of Customs. Hon. Arthur Thomas Bushby, Acting Postmaster-General. Hon. Edward Graham Alston, J.P. Hon. Henry Maynard Ball, J.P. Hon. Henry Holbrook, J.P. Hon. Peter O’Reilly, J.P. Hon. Augustus Frederick Pemberton, J.P. Hon. Edward Howard Sanders, J.P. Hon. George Anthony Walkem, J.P. Hon. Thomas Lett Wood, J.P. Hon. Francis Jones Barnard, Yale. Hon. Robert William Weir Carrall, Cariboo. Hon. Amor DeCosmos, Victoria District. Hon. Edgar Dewdney, Kootenay. Hon. Montague William Tyrwhitt Drake, Victoria City. Hon. John Sebastian Helmcken, Victoria City. Hon. Thomas Basil Humphreys, Lillooet. Hon. David Babington Ring, Nanaimo. Hon. John Robson, New Westminster. Council, if I did not believe that Confederation would prove advantageous to this Colony, and redound to the benefit of our local interests, I should not support it by my voice. I might as a Government servant vote for it as a Government measure, but I should not be standing here to speak for it and to advocate it as heartily as I do. It is hardly possible to show where the Colony will be benefited by Confederation, without discussing the terms, which is not my present intention to do ; but I promise Honourable Members that if these Resolutions get into Committee, I will fully satisfy them of the local advantages that must accrue to the Colony from union with Canada, on the terms proposed in these Resolutions. I believe, Sir, that many of the objections which have been raised to Confederation have arisen from prejudiced feelings. I have no reason to be prejudiced against or partial to Canada. I believe that Canadians as a people are no better than others, and no worse. I have no ties in Canada, no particular reason for entertaining any feeling of affection for Canada ; and if I did not believe that the advance which we make will be met in a becoming spirit, [“Hear, hear,”] then I should be of opinion that Confederation would be nothing more than an union on paper, one not beneficial to this Colony or to Canada. There are statesmen there, Sir, who know that it would be useless to try to beat us down on terms ; for what would be the use of Confederation if it afterwards turned out that this Colony was injured, rather than benefited, by it. The Honourable Junior Member for Victoria asks what guarantee have we that the terms will be carried out. I say at once, Sir, that if the terms are not carried out, if the Canadian Government repudiate their part of the agreement, we shall be equally at liberty to repudiate ours. [Dr. Helmcken — “How?”] We should,. I maintain, be at liberty to change; but I, for one, do not approach this subject with any such feeling. [“ Hear, hear,” from Mr. DeCosmos.] There are always two sides to a bargain, and if the terms which are frankly and honestly proposed are not fairly and honourably dealt with, we should, in my opinion, be at perfect liberty to draw back. There is, however, one real and practical objection which has always suggested itself to my mind from the first, and that is, that the same measures that apply to the circumstances of Canada, such as tariff, will not apply equally in all respects to this Colony. It will be asked, then, why is there no suggestion as to some alteration or modification of the tariff in the terms. The reason is somewhat similar to the reason for the omission of all mention of Responsible Government. You would find it very difficult to come to any conclusions on this subject in this Council. It is impracticable to define now positively what precise tariff would best suit this country. Some favour a free port. I should be inclined to favour it myself if I believed it practicable. Some, on the other hand, say that we must have protection to agriculture, and that without it we cannot compete with the farmers of Oregon. This point was fully discussed in the Executive Council, but it was decided to omit any conditions for the regulation of Customs dues from these terms ; and I do not think that this measure ought to be complicated with the tariff question. I believe that we may safely trust this people with whom we are about to negotiate, to do as much for us in this direction as we could do for ourselves; it will be to their interest to do so. It requires no argument to show that it will be to the interest of Canada, after Confederation, to advance the prosperity of this country. If it be possible to ’adopt a special tariff to this part of the Colony, and I see no reason why it should not be adopted, I confidently hope to see such a special tariff arranged under Confederation. [“ Hear, hear,” from Mr. DeCosmos.] Rely upon it, Sir, that there are statesmen in Canada who have a far wider and longer political experience than Members of this House, and who would be able to point out many means of prosperity, for which we are looking with so much anxiety, — powerful minds, before which I feel humbled, — men who I cannot for a moment suppose would fail to see as plainly as we do that Confederation would be of no benefit to Canada unless it redound to the advantage of British Columbia. This requires no argument; it is perfectly plain common sense. If we are not to have Confederation, what are we to have? What is the proposition of those who oppose Confederation? The people of this Colony have been, for a long time past, asking for a change, and it has been the policy of those who ask for change to throw the blame of everything upon the Government. The policy of the Imperial Government on this matter is clearly expressed in Earl Granville’s despatch. He does not say you must confederate, whether you will or not ; it is left to the people to decide this question for themselves ; but he 24 Confederation Debate. says, virtually, “ You have for years been asking for a change, you complain that your present form of Government does not suit you ; we point out for your consideration Confederation, which, if it suits you, we favour; the Government of Canada is ready to step in and assist you to carry out your views for the advancement of your local interests.” Now, Sir, I say to this Council, — If you don’t want Confederation, what do you want? To remain as you are? This I know you are not satisfied to do. What then? Establish a sort of Independent Govern- ment of about 6,000 people, connected with nobody, owing allegiance to nobody? The idea is absurd. There appears, then, to be no alternative to Confederation, but that suggestion which has been shadowed forth during this debate, and which I, for one, decline to consider as a possibility. And so we come to Confederation as our manifest destiny. To sum up my argument in support of the motion of the Honourable the Attorney- General — I advocate Confederation because it will secure the continuance of this Colony under the British Flag, and strengthen British interests on this Continent ; and because it will benefit this community, by lessening taxation and giving increased revenue for local expenditure ; by advancing the political status of the Colony ; by securing the practical aid of the Dominion Government, who are, I believe, able to — and whose special care it would be to devise and— carry into effect measures tending to develop the natural resources, and to promote the pros- perity of this Colony ; and by affording, through a railway, the only means of acquiring a permanent population, which must come from the east of the Rocky Mountains. The Hon. Mr, HOLBROOK said : — Sir, In rising to continue this debate, after the able speech of the Hon. Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, I feel that there is little left for me to say, as when we go into Committee I shall have an opportunity of expressing my opinion upon the terms ; and it would be factious to oppose a measure which has to come before the people for their decision. The way, Sir, that I understand the question of Confederation to stand at present, is that it is not a mere abstract question of Confederation with Canada, but a question of certain terms which have to be laid before the people; therefore, I say that any opposition against this being done would be factious. As regards myself, I shall abide by such decision, whatever it may be, as I consider the people themselves are the best judges as to whether they will benefit, or otherwise, by becoming part and parcel of the Dominion of Canada. This matter has evidently been well considered by the Executive Council, most of whom are largely interested in the welfare of the Colony, and several of them have been as much opposed to immediate Confederation, when the question has been before this Council on other occasions, as I have been. But having had an opportunity of seeing the documents which have come from the Imperial Government on the subject, the Executive have arrived at the decision that it is best . for this question to go to the country, upon the assumption that the people will ask for Confed- eration to be carried out on certain terms ; therefore, I say, Sir, let it go to the people and settlers of the Colony, and by their verdict let it be decided. Earl Granville has sent out a despatch which states, in pretty plain terms, that we were not able to govern ourselves; and there was, perhaps, more truth than poetry in this ; for we have had the greatest liberty granted to us, and yet we have not been content. Our Gold Mining Laws have been made by the Mining Board ; we have had the most liberal Land Laws ; and if we have had a want that the law could satisfy, it has been immediately granted. Our Officials are an honour to the country. As an Englishman, I am proud of them.* Justice has been properly administered in the country ; there has been absolutely security to life and property ; so much so that a man can travel in perfect safety from Cariboo to Victoria, and capital can be safely invested in any part of the Colony. We have excellent roads, and one of the richest spots on the whole earth for our Colony, whether as regards mining wealth or agricultural resources ; and yet a petition has emanated from a small body of foreign residents in the City of Victoria, asking to be annexed to the great Republic adjoining. I am well aware, Sir, that, as has been well said by the Hon. Chief Commissioner, the petition was paltry and unworthy of notice, and that those who signed it were insignificant; and I may be allowed to say that we of the Mainland had no feelings in common with them. If it were within reason to contemplate the possibility of the occurrence of such an alternative, it might be worth while to point out its disadvantages, and to show that under it we should not even have representation, as without a certain population, which we have not, we could not elect a member, and we should fall back to what Washington Territory and Oregon were in the days before this City of Victoria was brought forward by the Fleet, Confederation Debate. to the encouragement and development of the neighbouring States, equally, or perhaps in excess of the interests of our own Colony. We may say that liberty had run wild; people have actually become dissatisfied because they have had too much of it. I remember a similar discontent with excess of liberty in Paris, after the Revolution of 1848 ; the people revelled in excess of freedom, and from so much liberty they fell into another Revolution. It is only in a country with such free institutions as England, that such a petition could have been signed with impunity ; for if it means anything at all, it did not stop short of treason. In most other countries the signers would have forfeited their liberty ; in some that I have lived in, the penalty would have been death. Speaking for the Mainland, Sir, and coming from the Royal Town of New Westminster, I have a right to speak in the name of its loyal inhabitants. I say that, although Confederation with Canada meets with favour in some quarters, the feelings of the inhabitants are, and ever will be, thoroughly loyal to the glorious flag of Great Britain, and feel proud of belonging to that flag which represents honour, power, justice, and wealth, and which is stainless and untarnished, whether unfurled in the face of an enemy and defended by its sons, or floating in peace over such a Colony as this. We have had our complaints on the Mainland, and we considered the removal of the Capital and centralization of business at Victoria an injustice to the rest of the Colony, for the reason, principally, that Victoria, from its proximity to the United States, draws its supplies thence, instead of from the Mainland, to the gain of the neighbouring States, and consequent loss to the agricultural districts of the Mainland of some $10,000 annually, in the article of beef alone; and for the reason that, by the Fleet being placed at Esquimalt, we of the Mainland were not only left without protection, but that the agricultural interests of Washington Territory and Oregon were being built up with the money expended by the Fleet in the purchase of supplies, which if spent in the Valley of the Fraser would, by this time, have given us there a population of some thousands. The people of my part of the Colony have favoured Confederation, in the belief that the resources of the Colony would receive some consideration from the Dominion Government. W T e all acknowledge that population is required, and I think there is no reason to doubt that it will come. I do not attribute the depression, as some Hon. Members have done, to bad Government. We merely followed the course of other gold countries in over trading, and placed all our dependence upon a single mining district, and when we did not find another Williams Creek so rapidly as we expected, we became disheartened. But, Sir, I mean to state, and I do so without fear of contradiction, that our natural resources are more prosperous to-day than they have ever been before, and I need only point to the 8,000 acres of land taken up last year as an example of real and solid prosperity. We shall acquire population from Canada by means of the railroad, and the large amount of money required for its construction will tend to our prosperity. Our merchants also want something fixed, that they may not be threatened with constant change, which renders commerce fluctuating and uncertain. I consider, Sir, that the time is opportune for Confederation for many reasons, amongst others, that there is a favourable opportunity for us, with the aid of Canada, to make arrange- ments for the reception of some of the emigrant poor, who are now being assisted by the Societies in England to go out to the Colonies. Work could be found for them on the railway, and by this means much of our valuable agricultural land might be settled up. I shall reserve to myself the right of opposing some of the terms when they come under discussion, and of asking that others may be inserted. I should be glad to see inserted in the terms a clause empowering our Focal Government to make her own tariff, so as to protect our farming interests, in a similar manner as, under the Imperial Government, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have rights reserved; but I am of opinion that the full tariff of the Dominion should in all cases be charged, and that the Local Government of British Columbia should have the exclusive benefit of any extra tariff. The Indians, also, should be secured the same protection that they have under our own Government. They are now content with us, and "with the way in which the laws are adminis- tered, and it is quite possible that they may hereafter be a source of great trouble, if they are not considered as well as white men. I shall hail with pleasure the salmon laws of Canada, spoken of by one Honourable Member, which will prevent the placing of salmon traps at the mouth of the Fraser, stopping thereby the fish from ascending the river, and by that means cutting off the food of the Indians, and 26 Confederation Debate. taking from them the means of support ; but I should much regret to see any laws brought into operation which would grant monopolies, such, for instance, as in the case of cranberries, which are at present a source of living to many hundreds of Indians. As regards our defences : we should have the right to have our own forces, as every one would have to serve in the Militia ; but so long as English troops are stationed in Canada, we ought, when we become an integral part of the Dominion, to have our share of them. And at no very distant future I trust that the great scheme of Confederation may be carried out, and that the Dominion may have a Royal Prince at its head, and then may the views of the great Anglo-Saxon race as regards commerce and trade become enlightened so that English goods may come into the Dominion duty free. As we shall, from our position on the Pacific Coast, be the key-stone of Confederation, I hope we may become the most glorious in the whole structure, and tend to our own and England's future greatness. I shall support the motion of the Honourable the Attorney-General. The Hon. Me. WOOD said: — Sir, I rise to support the amendment of the Honourable Junior Member for Victoria, to postpone the consideration of these Resolutions for six months. I desire, Sir, to express my unqualified opposition to what is termed the Confederation of this Colony with the Dominion of Canada on the basis of the Organic Act ; and in dealing with the subject I shall address myself to three several heads of objection: Firstly, to the principle of the Organic Act of 1867, as applied to the British North American Provinces ; Secondly, to the special application of the principle to this Colony ; Thirdly, to the mode in which the consent of its adoption is now attempted to be obtained. Referring for a moment to my own personal position in this Council, I should wish to say that I feel bound as a non-representative and non-official member to present my own views. My mouth is not closed by official reticence, nor do I represent any constituency. I am here, bound by my duty as a Member of this Council, to express my own conscientious views in respect of the measure in explicit terms, in the interests no less of this Colony than of Great Britain, which in this, as in every Colonial question, I cannot but hold to be identical. With respect to the general principle of Confederation of the British North American Provinces, it will be remembered that, in 1867, I was one of those Members who did vote that Confederation, on fair and equitable terms, was desirable. I am of that opinion still ; but my objection is that no terms based on the Organic Act of 1867 can be fair or equitable. It cannot be denied that the idea of a confederation and general alliance between the British Colonies in North America is a very captivating idea. The existence of a homogeneous nation tending to act as a counterpoise to the great Republic to the south of us, is a grand' political idea, but it is an idea most dangerous and difficult to carry out. When I voted in 1867 for Confederation on fair and equitable terms, I had in my mind Confederation in the general acceptance of the word as understood by all political writers and by the world in general — a union of free and self-governed States, united by a federal compact for purposes of offence and defence, of peace and war, and for the purposes of maintaining and preserving uniformity in laws and institutions which affect the social and commercial relation of life; such laws and institutions as criminal law and practice, the general administration of justice, and the laws regulating commerce and navigation. Such a Confederation I then believed to be possible. I am foolish enough to believe it to be possible still ; but Confederation as understood iby Canadian and Imperial statesmen — Confederation as effected by the Organic Act of 1S67 — iis not Confederation at all. I would, indeed, throw the word Confederation to the winds, since by Confederation is obviously meant union, incorporation, and absorption. The Organic Act of 1867, provides for the entire transfer of all effective legislative power and control to Ottawa, as the seat of the Dominion Government, where, owing to the much greater wealth and population lain the part that I took in pressing Confederation on the Council in 1868. 1 first endeavoured, with the Hon. Member for New Westminster, to enlist Governor Seymour in the matter, — get him to take it up as a Government measure, — and open negotiations with the Canadian Government. But he refused to interfere in it, and said the Council might deal with it. Without the support of the Governor, in a Council so constituted, there was no hope for the measure. It then became a question whether any Resolution on it ought to be brought forward in the Council. Some Confederates urged that it would not do to have a Resolution defeated. On the other hand, I thought it best to make some proposition, merely to elicit an expression of the Council’s opinion, and show the country its attitude on the question. For in agitating the question, unless it could be proved incontestably that the Council and Executive were opposed, the people could not be aroused to take action. I, therefore, brought it up in a series of Resolutions before the House, and not in Committee of the Whole. If I had had the least hope that it would have passed, I would have had it con- sidered in Committee of the Whole, — the proper place to settle such an important matter, after the terms had been settled between the two Governments. As a matter of course, the Resolu- tions were defeated. But subsequently, when it was urged upon the Governor, at the instance of the Collector of Customs, that the Council be allowed to take action, he said “ No ; let the people act.” Hon. Mr. CARRALL — I shall vote in favour of this clause, and I only desire to offer three remarks. The Council have had two objects mainly in view : first, to bring in a scheme which should bring general prosperity ; and, secondly, that no vested interests should be affected by the act of Confederation. The positions held by official gentlemen are, I contend, vested interests, and as such, entitled to protection. As regards the way in which members have been treated in other Colonies, there are numbers who are now receiving pensions. I may instance two notable members of the Imperial Government — the Right Hons. Robert Lowe and H. C. E. Childers. I desire to put it upon record that I vote for this clause with as much pleasure as 1 support any clause of the Resolutions. Clause 6 was then read by the Chairman, and passed as read. The Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed the adoption of Clause 7 : — “ 7. The Dominion Government shall supply an efficient and regular fortnightly steam “ communication between Victoria and San Francisco, by steamers adapted and giving facilities “ for the conveyance of passengers and cargo.” This clause speaks for itself, and it is unnecessary for me to say anything in support of it. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I regard this paragraph of the Resolutions as a make- weight, nothing more nor less. It is a mistake to make it one of the essential conditions. The time may come when we don’t want this steam communication. The Railway may come to Puget Sound, and then this clause will be unnecessary. People will say, at first, that this is a splendid thing ; but it is all included in the British North America Act. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — The Hon. Member refers, I suppose, to clause (&) of Section 92, which excepts “ Lines of steamships between the Province and any British or foreign country ” from the “ Local works and undertakings ” which are declared to be subjects of exclusive Provincial legislation. The Dominion Government would have to make provision for mail steamers. This clause provides for regular communication. When we have com- munication with Canada by railway, such a clause as this would be unnecessary ; but now, if confederated, we shall need, more than ever, regular and more frequent communication with San Francisco, which is the chain of communication with Canada. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — T here seems to be a spirit of distrust in this and other clauses of these Resolutions, a desire to have everything in writing. I believe that we should have a steamship line without this clause. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — The Hon. Member says it is of no use. If the clause was not there, the Dominion Government need not give us this communication. Postal communication it must give; but that means only communication with Olympia. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I do not think that this implies distrust, any more than asking a man to give a note for a debt implies distrust. In the conditions framed on the admission into the 78 Confederation Debate. Confederation of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, these matters are set out with great minuteness. I perfectly agree that we might trust the Canadian Government, hut we are not in Canada, and we are asked to name specific terms. Surely we ought to do so. It would be very unbusiness-like to say to the Dominion, we will leave it all to you. The Dominion Govern- ment would say, let it be prepared in black and white, so that we may say whether we can perform it or not. The Chairman read Clause 7. Passed as read. The Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed the adoption of Clause 8 : — “ 8. Inasmuch as no real Union can subsist between this Colony and Canada without the “ speedy establishment of communication across the Rocky Mountains by Coach Road and “ Railway, the Dominion shall, within three years from the date of Union, construct and open “ for traffic such Coach Road, from some point on the line of the Main Trunk Road of this “ Colony to Fort Garry, of similar character to the said Main Trunk Road ; and shall further engage to use all means in her power to complete such Railway communication at the “ earliest practicable date, and that surveys to determine the proper line for such Railway “ shall be at once commenced ; and that a sum of not less than One Million Dollars shall be “ expended in every year, from and after three years from the date of Union, in actually con- “ structing the initial sections of such Railway from the seaboard of British Columbia, to “ connect with the Railway system of Canada.” I move this Resolution, Mr. Chairman, as being the practical bond of Union between the Dominion and this Colony. I leave it to other members to discuss the details. I merely say that three years is the time deemed necessary to make preliminary surveys, and the expendi- ture of a sum of $1,000,000 is the best practical guarantee that the work will be done. The Dominion would not submit to the expenditure of such an amount if they did not intend to push the work forward as quickly as possible. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — S ir, I do not claim any honour in connection with the Resolu- tion respecting the Railway. I am perfectly willing to accord the praise that is due to the originator of this clause, but think a portion of it a great mistake. I do not altogether like the way in which these Resolutions are got up. I don’t like the preamble as to “ real union.” In all these Government Resolutions there is something of a “ catching ” character ; little hooks to catch the popular vote. Material union can exist without railroads. Look at the real union between this Colony and Great Britain. People who were here in 1859 may recollect how safe they felt during the San Juan difficulty, and subsequently during the Trent affair. There was then a physical union ; we felt that we should be protected by force if necessary. I believe that I was amongst the first or second of those who moved in the matter of the trans- continental coach road. But whilst on this subject I will take occasion to do justice to the memory of the gentleman who proposed the Overland Railway through British America. It was during the administration of Sir Robert Peel, in 1844 or 1845, that A. W. Godfrey, a bookseller in Halifax, addressed letters to Sir Robert Peel, about a Railway from Halifax to Vancouver Island. Previously, Whitney had proposed his scheme for a Railroad from Texas to the Pacific. Our worthy old citizen, Mr. Waddington, has been distinguished among those who have taken active measures in favour of the Railway. Till Lord Granville’s despatch arrived, none of the railway agitators seemed to have made much headway. At the Conference of Delegates from British North America in London, an Overland Railway was considered and described as “ a subject of the highest importance, and one to be promoted at the earliest stage that the finances of the country would admit of.” The proposition before us shows how great a stride has been made in this matter since 1867. I have no wish to claim any honour or to detract from that which is due to others, but we must recollect that $1,000,000 a year is not a Railway across the Rocky Mountains. I have, however, year after year, looked upon Rail- way communication as the only means to settle up the interior of British Columbia. I never could see how British Columbia could be settled up without a Railway to connect Fraser River with Kamloops. I think, Sir, that a different course ought to be pursued by the Government with the Domihion than that proposed. Assuming that the Coach Road may be open in three years, — for I am ready to admit that proposition, — when people settle the country from Thompson River to Osoyoos Lake the farmers must have the means of transport for their various productions. How are they to get them out? I maintain that the true course for the development of the resources of the country is to make a line of Railway from Confederation Debate. ' 70 some navigable spot on the Fraser to Lake Kamloops. I claim for this that it might be regarded as a part of the transcontinental line, and in my opinion it would do more to build up the country than anything else that could be conceived, and I believe it to be thoroughly practicable. X, therefore, move a recommendation to His Excellency that the construction of a Railway from steamboat navigation on the Fraser River to Kamloops Lake be inserted in the terms, instead of commencing from the initial sections on the seaboard of British Columbia. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — Sir, I approach the consideration of this clause with a great sense of the magnitude of the work which we propose to the Government of that Dominion with which we propose to be confederated. My mind seems somewhat to shrink before the contemplation of its magnitude; and it is only when the reflection is gradually forced upon me, that the union can never be a reality until the Railway is commenced in our own territory, and that it is necessary, that I can bring myself to believe that it should be done. That it is practicable is undeniable, and needs no argument. From all information I have been able to obtain, and comparing it with the difficulties which have been overcome on the Pacific line, I believe the proportion of cost of the proposed line of Railway from the seaboard of British Columbia to Canada to be not more than two-thirds of the cost of the line already built from California across the Sierra Nevada. There will, of course, be difficulties to overcome, which may influence the choice of the best line of route. I believe we are justi- fied in asking for the construction of the Railway, and I am satisfied, I may say I know, that there is a great desire on the part of those now in power in Canada to construct this Railroad, and if it be in their power to do it it will be done. To go to the terms : objections have been made to the time of commencement. I would ask the House to consider what an amount of prospecting and survey will have to be done before any commencement can possibly be made in the work. I do not think that there is any delay suggested by fixing the time of three years. I think it is the shortest time that could be named. The proper line could hardly be determined sooner. We do not presume to suggest the scheme, or the means. My opinion is that the Railway will be built by private enterprise, under a guarantee. As the Imperial Government have shown a desire to encourage Confederation, I think we have a right to expect that they will render some assistance in the building of the Railway, especially after Lord Granville’s despatch. [Hear, hear.] I hope that the Canadian Government will have the assistance of the Imperial Government in carrying out this scheme. It will be some time before the scheme can be developed, and then at least two seasons must elapse, as an immense amount of reconnoitring and surveying will be necessary. Three years is not too much. The Hon. Member for Victoria District (Mr. DeCosmos) objects to the framing of this Resolution as too catching. I think his objection is unfounded. I believe that the benefits will be real and substantial. The reason that so small a sum as $1,000,000 is asked for is that it is only intended to be an earnest, so to speak, on the part of the Dominion Government that the Railway will be made. I believe that the expenditure of $1,000,000 upon the first twenty miles will bring an accession of from 5,000 to 10,000 to our population. We have a right to ask that the Railway should be commenced here. It is desirable that it should be made here. It will be found that when once it is commenced here a nucleus of population will be formed which will add considerably to the prosperity of the Colony. It has been argued that no profit can arise from the expenditure of the vast amount of capital that will be required to build this Railway. It will cost probably $20,000,000, and therefore is not likely to be profitable for years to come. We cannot, in my opinion, expect any pecuniary return for years. It behoves the Dominion Government, if they desire the prosperity of this part of the Empire, to develop the resources of the estate which we are handing over. If they value it as we do, and as we believe that they do, they will endeavour to realize the advantages at the earliest possible date. This Railway will do so, when it is completed across the Rocky Mountains, and in my opinion not till then shall we have a population. Before concluding, I desire to say that it is intended, although it is not so stated in the terms, to give an assurance to the Dominion Government that any amount of land which they think reasonable will be given. This will be made a part of the scheme for the construction of the Railway, if thought desirable. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — Sir, I look upon this clause as most important. I am one of those who believe that there can be no real Confederation without a Railroad. Government has made a mistake in naming the sum of $1,000,000 to be expended on the seaboard. There 80 v Confederation Debate. is no necessity to put this in. This would only bring a floating population, which we do not want. I agree with the Hon. Member for Victoria District, that the Railway ought to be commenced in the agricultural districts of the Mainland, so as to connect them with the head of navigation on the Fraser. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — It does not become us, I think, to dictate in what way the work should be done, or to describe the details of the scheme to Canada. I feel con- fident that if this plan is really taken up it will be done much more quickly than if only $1,000,000 a year were spent. I think that several millions a year will be expended, and if so I have little doubt that the Railway from the seaboard to the agricultural districts will be made in five years. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — W hat is the seaboard? Does it mean Barclay Sound? Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — That is what we have purposely left open. The line may come down the valley of the Fraser, as in my opinion will be best, or it may come through to Bute Inlet or Bentinck Arm. We have purposely generalized and left it for those who undertake the work to determine for themselves. It is not desirable for us to cramp this Resolution by defining the locality for the line or terminus. The Hon. Mr. ROBSON. — Sir, I conceive that we have now come to the most vital part of the whole scheme. I quite concur in the opinion that no real union can take place without a Railway. Did I believe that the Overland Railway would not be made, I should hesitate very much about Confederation, because I should be apprehensive that the whole scheme would fall to pieces. I think that great haste must be used to build up an English-speaking nation along- side of another existing English-speaking country. To accomplish this end, I think that the Overland Railway is necessary, and must be pushed through to speedy completion to be an immediate success. In ten years’ time, without an Overland Railway, I do not believe that we should have any British Territory here at all. The great work must be undertaken with the assistance of both the Canadian and Imperial Governments, and pushed through to a speedy success. It is true that a sort of union might exist without a Railway, such as the union between British Columbia and Great Britain. But we propose to establish a union that will endure, and that will render an Overland Railway just as necessary as the arteries in the human body are necessary to circulate the blood and to keep up life. I believe that $1,000,000 is a mere nominal sum, as explained by the Hon. Chief Commissioner, a tangible security that the work will be completed. The expenditure of the first million will be a guarantee that any company or Government undertaking it will carry it through. Every reflecting mind will see that if any company spend $1,000,000 a year, they must spend more, and that it will be to their interest to push it through. To say that because we only name a sum of $1,000,000, that it will be a matter of 100 years is absurd ; my reply to this, I cannot call it an argument, is that capitalists could not be found in the world so silly as to spread the construction over one hundred, or fifty, or twenty, or even ten years. I cannot support the amendment of the Hon. Member for Victoria District ; we must carefully avoid committing ourselves to the route or terms of building. I think this may be safely left in the hands of the Dominion Govern- ment. It is useless to argue that it is of vital importance to them to have the best route. The Railway must pass through the Colony, and benefit the Colony, no matter where the terminus ; it must be in British Columbia, and consequently a benefit to the whole Colony. I cannot see that it would be better to begin in the middle. I look upon it as an absolute necessity that the Railway should commence at the seaboard: moving the material is the great expense that has to be contended against, and the advantage of being able to land the material and lay it down at once on the road, will be incalculable. If the Railway were to be constructed from a given point ten miles from the seaboard, it would probably pay the contractors to build that piece of the line. Unless Hon. Members can show us that the material can be brought to the line by way of the Rocky Mountains, don’t let us stultify ourselves by asking them to begin in the middle. It is right that the work should be commenced simultaneously on the Atlantic and Pacific sides. I fancy that, as a matter of policy and economy, any company undertaking the work would so commence, without it being named in the terms, as it would undoubtedly be more economical to carry on the work by sea from the westward in British Columbia, and by land from the East. As for the amount named in the conditions, as I have said, I look upon it as a tangible assurance to the people that the thing will be done, rather than as the specific statement of a sum with the expenditure of which this Colony will be satisfied. I have some Confederation Debate. 81 doubts about the clause requiring the Dominion Government to make a Coach Road. The age for Coach Roads has almost passed away. Such a road would not meet the requirements of the present day. I would prefer removing this condition, and require the work to be com- menced within two years, or seek compensation in some other way as an equivalent for the supposed advantage of the road. The sooner we do our little part towards convincing the Dominion Government that this is necessary, the better. Not only is the Railway a national necessity for the Dominion, but for every fractional part of British North America. The Hon. Mr. HELMCKEN — I reiterate that Confederation means terms. What feeling now exists in favour of Confederation has been brought about by the assertion that Canada will do certain things for the Colony, amongst others, that she will build a Railway. If the people are deceived in this matter ; if Canada does not accede to this portion of the conditions, she need not ask the people of this Colony to be united. I would ask the people to band them- selves together to demand that the terms shall be verified, and I hope they will take that stand. And I will ask that the promises made by the Dominion Government will be strictly performed. [“Hear, hear,” from Mr. DeCosmos and Mr. Wood.] This Colony would be just as much isolated as ever after a paper union, without a Railway as one of the conditions. I acknowledge that we might have such union as exists with England now, with a Railway. We are a Colony of England, and I don’t know that many people object to being a Colony of England ; but I say that very many would object to becoming a Colony of Canada. As a Colony of England we have the right to legislate for ourselves ; if we become a Colony of Canada, that power is taken away. [“No, no,” from Mr. DeCosmos.] [Hon. Mr. Robson, it will give us more power.] I say that the power of regulating our own commerce is taken away, and the only power left to us is that of raising taxes for Municipal purposes. That is the difference between being a Colony of Canada, and a Colony of England. The distance is so great between this Colony and Ottawa without any Railway and without any Telegraphic communication, that laws might be passed there, which would ruin British Columbia, without our having any notice of them. I do not consider that Canada expects or intends to attempt to make this Railway a paying institution of itself. There are a great many institutions in this Colony which are not paying institutions. Canada takes the view that the Railway is necessary to complete the British line of communication between England and her Asiatic possessions, in order that the English people may share in the carrying trade to China and the East Indies with our American neighbours. Canada expects to influence Great Britain to guarantee the loan for the formation of the Rail- way. Great Britain may guarantee the loan for the purpose of having a check on the American line of Railway, but she would never guarantee it for Canadian purposes only. The people of England would not tolerate it. I consider this an essential condition. Without it Confederation must not take place. This is one of those things which will be a vast benefit to this Colony and to Canada, and therefore I regard it as a necessary condition. Why should this Colony join Canada except for the benefit of both? We should be better off without Canada if we have no Railway. I say that this Colony had better stand alone than risk everything, without a Railway. What benefit can Canada expect from Confederation with British Columbia without a Railway? Is she afraid of British Columbia being handed over to America? If Canada thinks she can hold British Columbia for her own purposes, and use it when she pleases, and takes her own time to do what she likes with it, she is mistaken. The Railway has been made a lever for Confedera- tion, by Canada. I ask that Canada be now made to promise faithfully that a Railway shall be made. With regard to the expenditure of $1,000,000, there should be a forfeit of ten per cent, payable to this Colony if it is not spent. I am not so much afraid about the Canadian Govern- ment not carrying out the terms, as I am of our own people. I believe that there is more danger from our own people than from the Canadian Government British Columbia may cheat herself, and it is our duty, man for man, to take care that we don’t cheat this Colony; that we don’t in fact cheat ourselves. I think that the Coach Road may be useful ; it will take some time to build a Railroad, and it will be necessary to have communication. The road might be used for Immigration purposes, and for driving cattle, but will be of no use commercially; such an idea would have suited people who lived some years ago. Speaking of commerce in which the Dominion is to take part, I do not myself believe that the Asiatic traffic will come this way ; but still we must not lose sight of the idea that it may eventually be partially diverted to this route. These Resolutions do not afford practically any immediate benefit. [“Hear, hear,” from Mr. DeCosmos.] If the Colony was united to the Dominion to-morrow, there would be no immediate 6 82 Confederation Debate. benefit to result even from the Railway. This is one of the points on which the people may be deceived, if they imagine that with Confederation will come immediate prosperity. I shall be glad if anyone will point out how it is to come. If it w T ere made inland it might be more beneficial to agricultural interests in a short space of time, than if commenced on the sea coast. Public works in this Colony should help to develop the resources, and one thing should be made to work with another, so as to be mutually beneficial ; each should be for the benefit of the whole, and the whole for the benefit of each. Suppose a Railway were commenced to-morrow at Fraser River, how much benefit would it be? It might be some, but if these public works were made subservient to the interests of settling up the Colony, they would be more likely to be beneficial. Hon. Mr. CARRALL — Sir, I have only a few words to say, and have no intention of detain- ing the House at this late hour, but I must be allowed to express the satisfaction which I feel in observing a change in the sentiments of the Hon. Member for Victoria City (Mr. Helmcken), a change which does honour to his head and heart. He has begun to show some faith in the Canadian Government at last. He may be called the pattern of the distrustful party, and I augur favourably from his conversion. With regard to the local advantages of a Railway, I would point to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. Property in Halifax has gone up 40 per cent, since it was built. I fully admit the desirability and necessity of a Railway, but I cannot admit that Union cannot exist without it; look at the Union which existed for so many years between California and the Eastern States of America without a Railway. I believe that Canada, for Imperial reasons, intends to undertake the construction of this Railway. As for the length of time allowed for the commencement, I think it could not be well less than three years. I believe with the Hon. Chief Commissioner, that the work will be undertaken by a private company, under guarantee. If so, it would be hampering the Government of the Dominion to make them commence earlier. It might compel them to close with parties not in all respects eligible. It would put them in a false position. If the Colony had charge of her own Crown lands, there should be a power given to Canada to promise Crown lands in connection with the construction of the Railway. I regret that this has not been put in the Resolutions, but no doubt the omission can be remedied hereafter. On the motion of Hon. Mr. Drake, the Committee rose, reported the passing of Clauses 5, 6, and 7, and obtained leave to sit again at one o’clock the 17th instant. Report adopted, and Clauses 5, 6, and 7, passed. Thursday, 17th March, 1870. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — M r. Chairman, judging from the statements made by the Govern- ment, this Railway is not likely to be completed in so short a period as I had hoped. The indefinite nature of the clause is unsatisfactory. It contemplates nothing more than the expenditure of $1,000,000 per annum, which would no doubt be a great boon, and would stimulate various branches of industry, but that is almost all that can be said of it. The way that it has been put to the Colony heretofore, was that the Canadian Government would construct the road. It now turns out, from the statements of the Hon. Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, that in all probability the Canadian Government will get some private com- pany to carry out the work ; and he adds “ that we may ” get a guarantee w r ith grants of land in aid of the undertaking. Now, Sir, from the first I have always been careful not to bring forward the question of the Railway in connection with Confederation. The London Conference favoured it only when the financial position of the Dominion admitted it. It must be quite a long time before connection by rail with the Canadian Railway system can take place. I never believed the Canadian Government would contract a debt for this purpose at the present. They are already, in my opinion, too deeply in debt, and are taxed too high, to allow them to do so. According to my calculation, it will cost $150,000,000 to complete the Railway from this Colony to Montreal. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — You mean to the head of the water communication of Lake Superior? Confederation Debate. 83 Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — N o ! that gets frozen up and cannot be utilized for several months in the year. It must go to Montreal, on the north side of Lakes Superior and Huron. It will cost $100,000,000 to construct it to Lake Superior from Victoria. Now a four per cent, guar- antee on $100,000,000 will require Canada to impose additional taxation of $4,000,000 a year. Then you must remember that the wear and tear of the Railway would not be met by the returns. Besides that, there are running expenses to be provided for. The United States Trans-continental Railway pays from the way stations in the populous districts through which it passes ; we should have none, except a few people at the Red River and in British Columbia. A four per cent, guarantee would be adding one-third to the annual taxation of the Dominion. Then for the portion of Railway they will have to make from the west end of Lake Superior to Montreal, there would be required $50,000,000 more at four per cent. To meet these sums, therefore, there would have to be raised an annual sum of $6,000,000 by Canada ; in other words they would have to add nearly fifty per cent, to the present taxation of Canada. Do you think, Sir, they will ever do this, or that any Finance Minister would dare attempt it in the present state of Canadian finances? I call attention to this view of the subject in order to prevent false impressions getting abroad, and the creation of false hopes, which will only lead to disappointment. With all due deference to his professional knowledge, I deny the correctness of the estimate of the Chief Commissioner that this Railway will cost only two-thirds of the United States Trans-continental line. This is a more difficult line in my opinion, not an easier one, than the line over the Sierra Nevada. Perhaps part of the year we might get communi- cation, partly by steamboat and partly by railway, but. for several months in the winter the water portion of the route would be closed up. In the temper of this House and the temper of the Government, I do not expect this Resolution of mine to go up to the Government. Now, I want to utilize our money, and to utilize our time. I estimate that a Railway from Fraser River to Kamloops would cost $50,000 a mile. According to the plan of the Chief Commissioner, with the expenditure of only $1,000,000 a year, at the end of five years, if we started at Burrard Inlet, we should get to Yale only, for which the water communication at present existing would suffice, and consequently that time would be lost. Possibly it might be opened to the Rocky Mountains in ten years, if begun at New Westminster as this scheme proposes. It is our duty to open the interior country — Osoyoos, Okanagan, Kamloops, Similkameen, and other districts. Bring the interior into communication with the seaboard, that would settle up the best portion of the interior, provide an outlet for produce, and keep the money that is now sent abroad within our own borders. The Government plan will injure, if not delay, the development of the country. I have no hope that my recommendation will pass, but still I have the satisfaction of feeling that I have done my duty. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — Sir, I rise to support the recommendation of the Hon. Member for Victoria District (Mr. DeCosmos). I quite agree with that Hon. gentleman that a Railway starting from the head of steamboat navigation, would be more useful than any other. If we have a Company spending $1,000,000 a year in building a Railway which will open up the farming districts, we shall be able to raise cereals and compete with our American neighbours, and by commencing at the head of navigation we shall reap the advantage in our lifetime. It will develope the Mainland. Agricultural land would be turned into profitable use, and the mining section from Big Bend to Kootenay, which contains, I believe, most valuable mines of gold and silver will be opened up. If the recommendation of the Lion. Member is adopted, we shall find almost immediate benefit from the opening up of the inland trade. It will bring us population, and will build up this City and New Westminster, and other towns through the Colony. I do hope it will receive the support of the Executive Council. Hon. Mr. RING — Sir, I thought we were discussing the necessity of a Railway, but I did not come prepared to discuss engineering questions as to route ; it is wasting words to discuss the topography. That must be decided by competent surveyors. Our business, as it appears to me, is to insist upon having a through Railway. And it is highly desirable that the construction should be commenced simultaneously at both ends as well as the survey. I shall thoroughly and cordially support the Government upon this clause. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — Sir, I thought I had made the Government views on this clause sufficiently clear yesterday, in supporting the Hon. the Attorney-General’s motion ; if not, my words could not have thoroughly expressed my meaning. The Government have not inserted the construction of a Railway into these Resolutions on the principle of local advantages. The 84 Confederation Debate. Hon. Member for Victoria District (Mr. DeCosmos) seems to argue that we inserted it in order to secure the advantages which would accrue to special localities from way traffic. But I can assure the House that the Executive Council entertained no such idea in adjusting the details of this great scheme; they have endeavoured to secure the utmost advantages to the whole Colony. You will observe, Sir, that the clause is most general in its terms, and it was purposely made so. It does not attempt to define the line the road should take ; it may have a terminus, as I distinctly stated before, at any place on the coast most convenient — at Bentinck Arm, Bute Inlet, or Burrard Inlet, or even by crossing the fiords between Vancouver Island and the Mainland, it may come to Victoria or Esquimalt. These details must be left to the parties constructing the line. The Executive Council have avoided all through all sectional and local considerations. I stated yesterday, and I repeat it again, that I hoped the Railway would follow down the valley of the Fraser River to the seaboard ; but the Government have purposely avoided any definition of any particular line, and have made it as general as possible. I also said that I did not think that the Dominion Government would make the line ; and I said so because I am well aware that this is not the way in which great works of this character are generally undertaken in these times. I believe that a private company, with the assistance of the Dominion Government, and I hope the Imperial Government also, will construct the line. But this is merely surmise. I know no more of my own actual knowledge than other Members round this board. But I come to this conclusion because I know that it is not considered feasible for Governments to undertake such works. It has been found to be a great mistake. Then why discuss the suggestions of the Hon. Member for constructing a Railway from Yale to Kamloops, or try to fix details which the spirit of the whole Resolution avoids, when we don’t even say the line shall pass Yale or Kamloops at all? It is a vast undertaking, and if undertaken at all, it will not be with a view’ to profit, but with a view to the future, and as part of the great responsibility of the Canadian Government in contracting alliance with this country. The strenuous desire of the Canadian Government is to make such a line. I think they are able to do it, and we know for certain that they will do it if they can. I do not agree with the Hon. Member for Victoria City (Dr. Helmcken), that Confederation means a Railway; the Government do not say that there shall be no Confederation without a Railway. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — No; that is my opinion, and I do not put it forward as the opinion of the Government. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I am glad to have that set right. The Government believe that the Railway will be made, but they do not make it a sine qua non ; but if, on a calm view of the whole subject in negotiating with Canada, it is found impracticable for Canada to commence to make the Railway at once, then I see alternative terms, which will not only suit Canada but the people of this Colony, who, you must remember, will have to pass upon them when they come back from Canada. It has been stated the public mind is impressed with the idea that the insertion of so paltry a sum as $1,000,000 will lead to the postponement of the completion of the Railway for fifty years. I can assure them it is a fallacy. Why, Sir, as well put by the Hon. Member for New Westminster yesterday, common sense shows that it would be against the interest of the parties making the line to prolong the work over a number of years. It can only be carried on quickly to secure any real profit. I again repeat what the Government Members stated yesterday so distinctly, that the one million a year is not nearly the sum which will have to be spent ; the amount stated is only intended to serve as a guarantee or an earnest that the work will be done. If we had said make it in so many years time, they could not have acceded to it. Certainly in three years’ time the Dominion Government will be in a position to determine the line. The suggestion of the Hon. Member is, in my opinion, wholly inapplicable to this scheme. If admitted it would entirely remodel the Government clause, which is general. The suggestion is, that the first section should be made at some place on Fraser River. As I said before, we cannot tell whether the Railway will come down the valley of the Fraser River at all. Those who spend the money have a right to choose their line. As far as my own opinion goes, I should say that the Canadian Government will determine the basis of the scheme on engineering considerations of the port best suited for pouring in supplies, and for the cheapest construction of the road. Do not let us hamper so great a scheme by such minute details ; let us leave it for those who have to construct the line to select their own route. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — The Hon. the Chief Commissioner has left very little for me to say upon this clause, but there is one point to which I would direct attention. The Hon. Member Confederation Debate. 85 for Victoria District has not sufficiently considered, it seems to me, how the material for the construction of the Railway would be most easily moved to the line from the sea coast. If the road is to be commenced at Yale, all the vast material and rolling stock would have to be shipped from the port in small steamers up the Fraser River, to a point at which the line, according to the Hon. Member’s scheme, would start. The extra expense would be ruinous ; and besides, it must be remembered that during a considerable portion of the year the naviga- tion of the river is closed to steamers ; and not only is this the case, but these boats cannot take up the engines and cars, but can only carry on the ordinary traffic when the population increases. No ; the real, the only proper, course will be to commence to lay the track from the ships to where the material will have to be laid. That alone puts out of the question the commencement of any initial section at Yale, or anywhere else than on the seaboard. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear from Hon. Members that this clause is the pivot of the whole scheme. I hope it will now be well understood that the Railway is the condition in Hon. Members’ minds upon which Confederation or no Confederation hangs. I hope that this will be remembered hereafter. This Railway is a gigantic undertaking. I look upon it as merely impracticable. I believe this Railway will cost more than the whole debt of Canada. [“ Hear, hear,” from Hons. DeCosmos and Robson.] The Government tells us that this Railway is to be a sine qua non. [“No” — Dr. Helmcken.] Why, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria, who is a Privy Councillor, says no. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — The Government does not say so ; I say so. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — Well, certain Hon. Members say so. Now, this is what will happen: Canada will agree to a Railway to get Confederation, and Confederation takes place, Canadian officials rule here, and Canadian laws prevail. Three years elapse, and Canada may find it inconvenient or impossible to carry out the Railway. I say that we require a guarantee for the making of the Railway. On Confederation how can we enforce this condition? This difficulty underlies the wdiole scheme. I ask how we are to get out of it. guard against it, or surmount it? Leave the Confederation? That means rebellion, which is not to be thought of by any law-loving persons. We can’t float ourselves out when once in ; then we are bound hand and foot from now to eternity. There should be a penalty of $50,000 for every year in which Canada fails to expend the one million. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — How do you propose to secure the $50,000? Hon. Mr. DRAKE — By Imperial guarantee. An Hon. MEMBER — How would the guarantee of the President of the United States do? [Laughter.] Hon. Mr. DRAKE — I shall be quite satisfied if the President of the United States indorses the bill. [Laughter.] I consider the Railway the primary and essential condition of Confeder- ation, and I think that Canada is too poor to guarantee such a work as this. She had to go to the Imperial Government to guarantee the payment of the £300,000 to buy out Canadian interests in the Red River Settlements, and I maintain that we are on the right course to ask for an Imperial guarantee now. When we get into Confederation we cannot help ourselves. If Canada is unable or unwilling to pay the $1,000,000 a year, as soon as it appears necessary to her to throw over the conditions, over they will be thrown. One Hon. Member tells us that Canadian statesmen are “ men of unbounded ambition.” Now, men of unbounded ambition will not scruple at anything to gain their ends ; that is all they look to. Until a guarantee is obtained, I shall oppose this Resolution. I don’t care whether it is the guarantee of the President of the United States or any other that will do. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I have listened with profound astonishment to the remarks of the Hon. Member who has just sat dowm, upon Canada and Canadian statesmen. I shall not condescend to reply to the aspersions. Canada can support herself against all this kind of thing. She is great enough to do so. Such attacks can only come from those who know nothing about those whom they malign. I am a Canadian, and am proud of being one ; but in this matter of making terms of union, I shall be as exacting as any reasonable Member of this Council can be. I would have all the conditions well understood, and would have them put in black and white, but I would ask no endorsement from any other source. When this agree- ment is completed between British Columbia and Canada, we shall have the best possible of guarantees. We shall have the guarantee of the Imperial Government, and of Her Majesty the Queen, from first to last. We shall have the endorsement of the Queen’s Proclamation, 86 Confederation Debate. which lies at the root of these conditions. Can we have or desire better security? [“Hear, hear,” from Mr. Trutch.] Hon. Members say we cannot get out, and that Canada may repudiate. I say, nothing of the kind. Canada would never be allowed by the Imperial Government to coerce this Colony to remain in Confederation for the fulfilment of one side of a contract of partnership, the terms of which Canada herself has trodden under foot. To entertain such a supposition is, if I may be allowed the expression, an outrage on common sense too absurd to be for a moment seriously entertained. Would the Imperial Government stand by and let Canada send a force of soldiers to compel British Columbia to remain in Con- federation under such circumstances? The Canadian Government never broke faith yet, and the Imperial Government never broke faith yet, and both are pledged to the fulfilment of this condition. Canada has hitherto gone in advance of her word. The distrustful views of the Hon. junior Member for Victoria (Mr. Drake) are so manifestly unjust that, as it is impossible that they can arise from ignorance, I may be pardoned for attributing them to wilfulness, to a rabid sense of opposition, and a chronic feeling of distrust. To ask the President of the United States to endorse a scheme which emanates from the Imperial Government, I look upon as a monstrous ill-timed joke, against which reason and argument are powerless. I cannot — we cannot discuss it. Now, to go to the ways and means. Why, Sir, it is well known that Canada is rich. Does the Hon. Member know’ that Ontario and Quebec have $4,000,000 lying idle at this moment, carrying low interest. There is plenty of capital in Canada at this moment to build the Pacific Railway. The reason why Canada uses the Imperial guarantee for the £300,000 is this : She can borrow cheaper through the Imperial Government, with their guarantee, than wuthout it. Canada frequently borrows money for public w’orks. It pays her to do so. It is simply a beneficial financial operation. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — I rise for the purpose of explaining that I make no reflections upon Canadian statesmen, but I treat this solely as a matter of business ; and ias in other ordinary business, I prefer having an endorsed note to a simple obligation. In the 145th section of the British North America Act, an Imperial guarantee for a loan of three millions sterling for a Railway is specified. I think v’e are justified in making a similar request. Mine is a business condition. I am willing to trust Canada, but I say w T e are entitled to ask for an endorser. The Hon. Member’s remarks have not disturbed my position. Hon. Mr. WOOD — I am obliged, Sir, in the few remarks that I intend to offer, to treat of all the amendments and suggestions together. To my mind, this condition wiiich requires the construction of the Overland Railway is one of the most important of all the terms. A great deal has been said about the incorruptibility of Canadian statesmen. No doubt Canadian statesmen are very like all others. Canada acts through her Ministers. Those now in power are, so far as we know, favourable to this scheme. But, without imputing motives, it must be admitted that it is very possible that a Canadian Ministry, some three or four years hence, possibly of the anti-Confederate party, or cold upon the subject of Confederation, w’hen pressed by circumstances, may be disinclined to carry out the terms, and with perfect consist- ency of political conduct, desire to obtain relief from carrying them out, and their first effort w r ould be to get a vote of the Provincial Legislature to relieve them from the burthen. In the event of Confederation, I should consider this country a Colony of Canada. [Hon. Mr. DeCosmos — “ No, an integral part of it.”] I say ia Canadian Colony, because, as I believe, neither Responsible Government nor full representative institutions are ito be granted under Confederation ; at all events, they are not included in these terms. And under such a consti- tution as w 7 e have now, the Canadian Government could easily get a vote of this Legislature to cancel the terms. I repudiate chronic opposition, but I consider it to be my duty to oppose the course that is being taken by some Hon. Members here. I believe there are some Hon. Members of this House w 7 ho desire Confederation on any, or without any, terms. [“ Name, name,” from Hons. Carrall and Robson ; “ No, no,” from Mr. DeCosmos.] The very gentlemen w 7 ho speak, if I may judge from their votes. [“No, mo.”] If I was in favour of Confederation at all ; if I did not think that reaction w 7 ould follow ; if I thought that Lord Granville’s argument was sound, I should say, “ Let us be confederated at once.” This brings me to a difference of opinion that exists. Some of us consider the Railw’ay a necessary point in the terms. Many of us, including Lord Granville, consider it essential. The Hon. Chief Commissioner says it is not essential. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I never said the Railway w’as not essential. Confederation Debate. 87 Hon. Mr. WOOD — 1 understood the Hon. Member to say that Government did not consider it essential. I fear that it is delusive to hope that the Imperial Government would give a guarantee for this Railway. They could only do so on military grounds ; but I am convinced they would never guarantee three thousand miles of an exposed line of Railway within a few miles of the territorial boundary, a thing which courts assault and would be so perilous to maintain, seeing that it could be cut in two in a hundred places by hostile forces from the United States. It requires little reflection to see that Colonial undertakings are seldom guaranteed now. Canada’s interest in the Railway, on the other hand, is purely commercial. For such a Railway to pay, it must pass through populous districts — places like Omaha and the United States’ towns. It is monstrous to suppose that England would supply the capital for such a scheme. No capitalists in the world would advance their money for such an under- taking. The matter has been talked threadbare in the public prints. It is out of the question to suppose that there would be any material trade in bulky goods this way. [Hear, hear, hear, hear.] Canada, finding the thing difficult, will refuse the terms. [“ No, no,” from Dr. Carrall.] I say the money will not be spent. I back my knowledge of the world and experience of men and things against the “ No, no ” of the Hon. Member, and I believe the result will be that the Canadian Government will refuse this item ; and in refusing will say, “ We do the best we can ; it is our interest to do the thing, but it is impossible to get the guarantee through Parliament.” I believe the Canadian statesmen who have the conduct of this matter will say to our Delegates, or to His Excellency, “ Don’t you think you can do without this Railway? You must take our desire to do it for the deed itself. By and bye, perhaps, it can be accomplished, and by no means so effectually as by becoming *a part of our Dominion.” And so a quiet go-by will be given to the Railway, and the terms will come back again shorn of this item. If, as the Hon. Chief Commissioner says, these terms are to come before the people — mind I say the people alone — I believe there is a feeling that Confederation is a movement which promises something, and this feeling will lead to these terms being passed. So weak are commercial and agricultural interests in this Colony at the present time, so small is the population, and the mass of the people are doing so badly and are so dissatisfied that, in my opinion, they will vote for anything that will give change and a chance of bettering themselves. I intend, Sir, to move an amendment, with the view of making this Railway a test question : — “ That without a substantial guarantee for an Overland Railway, Confedera- tion should be rejected by the Delegates from this Colony.” It is obvious that this motion will be defeated, but I am desirous to test the opinions of the representative members of this Council on so material a point as this. The Hon. Chief Commissioner says that these terms are to be decided, eventually, by the representative members alone, — of course, without the official vote. And here I may ask, are the official members, in the event of its ultimate discussion, to retire from the Council, and leave the question to the representative members alone? If we are fit for representative institutions, why not give them to us now? Having promised the Colony terms, I think the Executive are bound to present terms which are good, in the sense of being productive of permanent good and quiet enjoyment. I cannot forbear to say that in place of terms simply providing for pecuniary benefit, I should have preferred to have seen inserted constitutional powers, and powers of self-government. [“ Hear, hear,” from Hons. DeCosmos, Robson, and Humphreys.] I should have desired to embody these in the conditions ; and, in particular, I should have desired to retain full power over the Tariff. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN— The Tariff is an open question. Hon. Mr. WOOD — Give us reasonable powers of self-government, and I will accept Con- federation to-morrow. If we cannot settle our local matters, there will be trouble. If the Tariff is left an open question, it is at least one step in the right direction. Hon. Mr. HELMCKEN — It is an open question on agricultural matters. Hon. Mr. CARRALL— I shall not attempt to answer the discursive remarks of the Hon. Mr. Wood. It would require an ignis fatuus to do so, for he is here, there, and everywhere in no time; but I cannot suffer some of his remarks to pass unnoticed. I have sat in this Council for two sessions, and have endeavoured to conduct myself with propriety ; but I find certain Hon. gentlemen in this Council who, by inuendo and implication, directly and indirectly, have endeavoured to cast slurs upon Canada, and to slander and belittle the statesmen of that country, which I am proud to call my own. I have, hitherto, refrained from answering, because I thought my country occupied too high a place in the roll of England’s Colonies to Confederation Debate. ss be affected by such conduct. The position of Canada is so great, beyond cavil and dispute, as not to require any defender in this Council. Such remarks only recoil upon those who make them. The versatility of spleen displayed by the Hon. gentleman who has just sat down, only shows the bitterness of the mind that conceived the remarks. The question now before us is as to Clause S. and upon the discussion of this clause another question has arisen, or rather has been dragged in. namely, that of the ability of Canada to fulfil the condition of this particular clause, and it is said that this is to be made a test question. With regard to the idea of any future Canadian Mi ni stry repudiating this condition. I wish. Mr. Chairman, to refer you to English history, and to ask whether you have ever known an instance of an incoming Ministry, whether Whig. Radical, or Tory, repudiating the plighted troth of their predecessors in office? Such a thing is never done to my knowledge, and so far as my experience of history goes, never has been done. [“ Hear, hear.” from Hon. Attorney-General.] I have yet to learn an instance where a loan guaranteed, or anything else undertaken by any Government, has been repudiated by an incoming Ministry. We might just as well suppose that the guarantee for the loan for the Inter-colonial Railway might be withdrawn by Gladstone, because it was given by the late Ministry, as that any future party in Canada might entertain the idea of going back from the promises of the present Government. History forbids such an idea. The Hon. and learned Member for Victoria (Mr. Drake) says he wants a guarantee. Well, let him want it. I am perfectly willing that he should want it. For my part. I look upon the Queen's Proclamation as the guarantee which will make the whole thing inviolable. I point to the fact, that every compact entered into with the Maritime Provinces is being fulfilled. Can anyone point to any act of repudiation? No. Sir. Canada has gone beyond her promises. I repudiate, on behalf of myself and others, the assertion that any member of the confederate party has stated that he would accept Confederation without conditions. I never heard the Hon. Member for Victoria District, or the Hon. Member for New Westminster, who have taken a prominent part in this great question, make any such statement. I have the honour of being one of the Executive Council who framed these Resolutions, and I believe the terms will be acceptable to a large majority of the people. Those who say that there can be no Enion without a Railway, speak a fallacy. Railways follow. Look at San Francisco and the Eastern States of America. Look at Scotland and England. I am well aware that British Columbia wants a Railway, and I know that Canada wants it. I am sanguine enough to believe that it will be made. I am assured that the money is ready, if the desired guarantees can be obtained. The Hon. Mr. Wood, in his discursive remarks, flew around like a humming- bird buzzing round a rose, and amongst other things touched on the assa liability of the Railroad. I say that the American people have Railways of their own. and we do not intend to have from henceforth daily warfare. With regard to the course of the Railway, the Hon. Chief Commis- sioner has told you that the advantages of the line are greater than those of the existing Pacific line. It is well known that the American Pacific Railway, after passing Omaha, passes through a wild and most difficult country, through miles of wilds and sage-brush. [** No, no." from Mr. DeCosmos.] The North-West Territory is more fertile than any portion of the route of the Am erican Pacific Railway. The Hon. Mr. Wood says he will make this a test question. I say the whole terms are a test question, and no one part of them more than another. The Canadian Government are to be asked what they will do. and the final test will be for the decision of British subjects of this Colony. No one thing is a test more than another. The people have the sole right to say whether they are willing to take the terms as finally offered, or not. I have already spoken twice with regard to Representative Institutions, which the Hon. Mr. Wood regrets are not made a condition. Either I must fail to put my ideas clearly, or Hon. Members misunderstand me. I have said, over and over again, that the people must decide this question. His Excellency says that if the newly constituted Council asks for Responsible Government, under the Organic Act. they will get it. What need is there to drag in the question into these Resolutions? The Hon. Mr. Wood cannot, dare not. say that the majority of the British subjects in British Columbia are in favour of Responsible Government. I may be found in the minority upon this question when it comes before the people, but I speak from conviction : and. moreover. I say that when once we are in the Dominion, if the people desire Responsible Government, no power on earth can prevent them from having it. Hon. Me. ROBSON — I heartily concur with the Hon. Mr. Wood, in his views on Responsible Government. Confederation Debate. 89 Hon. Mr. WOOD — I never said I was in favour of Responsible Government. I say that the Governor asks for the ratification of the people, and at the same time denies that we are fit for self-government. I have never pledged myself to Responsible Government. [“Oh! oh! oh!”] Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I must oppose the amendment of the Hon. and learned member; first, because it raises invidious distinctions, and might lead to the inference that we were indifferent to the other portion of the terms ; secondly, because it asks this House to do what it cannot, and, even .if it had the power, ought not to do. This Council is not the proper body to dictate final 'terms. This Council is only a quasi-representative body, and does not fairly represent the people. With a House constituted as this is, containing some Members who professedly only represent their own individual opinions, it would, in my opinion, be an insult to the people to make any condition a test of union, in the sense proposed. Suppose Canada sends back the terms without the Railway, it is for the people to accept or reject them ; that is a right belonging to the people, who have not yet been consulted. The Hon. Mr. Wood has said that there are Hon. Members in this House who would go in for Confederation on any terms. I, for one, have never done so; nothing is more foreign to my desires. [“Hear, hear,” from the Attorney-General.] Though I am a Canadian, and am proud of my country, I am also a British Columbian ; and upon this question my first and last thought has been, is, and will be, for British Columbia. [“ Hear, hear,” from the Attorney -General.] Hon. Mr. ALSTON — As a test question, I must say I cannot vote for this amendment. If I am in this Council when the final votes upon Confederation are to be taken, I shall be prepared to vote against Confederation, unless a Railway is included in the terms — unless, that is to say, my sentiments undergo some change which I do not foresee. I do not see how, if this were made a test question, the Government could carry out their instructions, first to submit the Resolutions to Canada, and then to submit the Canadian terms to the people. This is not the time to submit a test question, neither can we arrogate to ourselves the power to do so ; it must be left to the popular vote. Therefore, although I fully concur in the senti- ment that we must have a Railway some time or other, I must vote against this amendment. Hon. Mr. HELMCKEN — Mr. Chairman, the sooner we get back to business the better. The discussion has become too wide. Some Hon. Members seem to think that Canada can’t do it, that too much money is required. What is the fact? We merely ask the Canadian Government to spend one million a year. What is the interest on that sum, at 4 per cent.? $40,000, and the next year $80,000. I don’t know how long it will take to get to the Rocky Mountains. We want the Railway for our own purposes. [“ Hear, hear, hear,” from Hons. DeCosmos, Holbrook, and others.] We shall derive benefit from the expenditure of a million dollars a year in the Colony, and be getting a Railway at the same time. Every one seems to think that the Railway will unite the country ; so it will ; but it is not simply a Railway or a Telegraph that will unite Canada and British Columbia. The only true basis of Union is that people should have the same interests, the same feelings, and the same desire to make this a prosperous country. If Canada gives us terms sufliciently good to show that it is her intention to do all she can to develop our resources and advance our interests, then she will gain the affections of the people of this Colony, and then there will be an Union which no Railway can give, a material Union which nothing can disturb, and we shall find hereafter that Kingdoms and Nations will spring out of this Union. We are told by the Hon. Mr. Wood that the Oflicials must vote for these terms, as they have been settled by the Governor. This is not so, for before any terms can be concluded some one must go to Canada from here, or come from Canada to this place, to arrange conditions. I believe in what His Excellency has said. I place more reliance on him than on any one else. I believe he will act fairly and justly in this matter, nor do I think there is so much to fear from Canada as there is from the danger of the people of this Colony 'Cheating themselves ; you can make the people believe anything. I do not agree that the country is in such a depressed condition. I know that Victoria, the chief city, is in rather a depressed condition, and perhaps New Westminster also, but outside it is otherwise. Hon. Mr. WOOD — Is the gold mining interest prosperous? Hon. Mr. HELMCKEN— The Hon. Member asks if the gold mining interest is prosperous. I say that this Colony has no business to depend upon its gold mining interests. Hon. Mr. WOOD— What else has she got? 90 Confederation Debate. Hon. Mr. HELMCKEN — She has agricultural interests, coal, lumber, and fisheries. What do you send away half a million of dollars for each year? We want a more industrious popula- tion, a productive population. But to return to the Railway : the sooner we get through this Railway the better; it opens so many avenues for discussion. I think it is the most essential part of this document. It is essential to Canada ; through it she hopes to make a country of this Colony ; and it is essential to us, as bringing us prosperity. I believe the Canadian Govern- ment will make the Railway in the interior. We are told that they have four millions lying idle; they cannot have a better investment for it than to build a Railroad from Fraser River to Kamloops. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I remark, Mr. Chairman, that there is a considerable contrast between the views of two Hon. Members of the Executive Council. 1 mean the Hon. Chief Commissioner (Mr. Trutch) and the Hon. Member for Victoria City (Dr. Helmcken). The former says that it is not proposed to construct a Railway with reference to local interests. He says to advocate our own local interests is simply inapposite. I think differently. I think that we should deal with it locally as well as nationally. I presume it is put in the terms* because it is expected that it will benefit the Colony. We don’t care so much for its benefiting the people of Montreal as for benefiting ourselves; we look at it from a British Columbian point of view. I say with the Hon. Member for Victoria City (Dr. Helmcken), that we should deal with it with reference to British Columbian interests. After the discussion of yesterday, I confess my surprise. I thought from the tenor of the Resolutions that the Canadian Govern- ment would construct the line. Now, we are informed by the Hon. Chief Commissioner that it will be undertaken by a private company. Then, he says if we cannot get a Railway we must have an equivalent. If this clause is not a fixed principle in the terms, then, I ask, what do the Government propose as an equivalent? With regard to Railway communication through British Columbia, we ought, in my opinion, to connect Kamloops and the adjacent country with the seaboard. That is, commencing at navigable water on Fraser River and ending at Savona’s Ferry, Kamloops Lake. This line, at the utmost, is only 150 miles long. The expense of its construction, at $50,000 per mile, would be $7,500,000. We might safely approach the Canadian Government upon this, irrespective of the terms of Union, under the constitutional provision authorizing the Dominion Government to construct public works of this character. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I say again that the scheme of this Railway, on which this clause is based, hangs on the construction of the line from the seaboard. I never said, and never intended to say, that we had no right to take into consideration whether or not local interests would be benefited. I say that I would not dare to stand up here and advocate a special link of a special line. I should think if I did so that I was doing what the Canadian Government could not. listen to. But in a great scheme which contemplates a line of Railway from the seaboard of British Columbia to Canada, I consider that the Dominion Government may take a broad view and strain a point to get it. This clause has been drawn without pre- tending to define the route. I did not say that it was proposed that the line should be built by a private company. I said that it suggested itself to my mind that the line would be built by a private company, not that it was so proposed. I do not disregard local interests. I look upon this Railway as a necessity of the position — a means to the end. I do not advocate it on its merits as to local interests, but as a grand scheme of Transcontinental Railway. Why, Sir, some say that the terminus should be brought to Esquimalt or Nanaimo. A Railway is wanted in the interests of the Confederacy, but the locality has been generalized as much as possible by the Government. This brings me to another point : though I look upon the Railway as a necessity of the position, in view of the approach of Confederation, I would not pledge mj self to bind the Dominion Government to the special terms of this clause. I think it possible that terms may be suggested, instead of this condition, which may be found to be acceptable to the people of this Colony, to whom, as you know. His Excellency says the matter must be referred. I do not look upon the Railway as unessential. I say it is essential ; for without unity of interests Confederation cannot endure. If I did not think that under Confederation we should be governed satisfactorily and to our advantage, I would oppose Confederation, and would advise its abandonment. I do not say, and I am not going to bind myself, that unless that clause is granted by Canada I shall not vote for Confederation, although I think it essential to the position. Confederation Debate. 91 Hon. Mr. WALKEM — Mr. Chairman, having been unfortunately absent during the early part of this debate, I have not been able, hitherto, to take part in it. I adopt the principle laid down by the Hon. Chief Commissioner with regard to this clause, but I think the clause is not general enough. It is true, that it is sufficiently general as to a part, but not as to the whole. Enough has been said about the spending of $1,000,000 to show what it means. I would leave out the one million. It would be enough, in my opinion, to say that it shall be constructed within a reasonable time. This would mean not an indefinite, but a reasonable, time ; it would be so interpreted by the Law Courts. I would leave out the definition of time, and I would leave out the one million. I think it will do us injury with Canadian statesmen ; they will say that this is the measure of our desire to be confederated. There is another point to which I would call attention. The language of the clause does not, in my opinion, imply that one million must necessarily be expended within the Colony. I conclude, after hearing the explanations of Hon. Members, that it is intended that the one million shall be spent here ; but in my opinion it might, under these words, be expended on any part of the line. I thought that was the intention; it was so thought in San Francisco. There were newspaper articles upon it, and the idea of a million a year being spent upon the Railway for a hundred years was laughed at on all sides. I would suggest an alteration in the words. I am ready to leave the construction of the English to any schoolmaster. I say that they do not mean “ in the Colony.” With regard to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Victoria District, I would remark that this is not really a final contract, and I agree with the Hon. Chief Commissioner that the clause ought to be general. The Canadian statesmen, with whom we are about to deal, are not mere tyros ; and I say that the mention of this one million leaves it open to Canada to keep the time open. If they expend that sum upon any portion of the line, they will be able to prolong the building of the road as long as they please. And, although it may be said that Canada will take care of us, I say we ought to take care of ourselves. Let us get as good terms as possible, not trusting to the Canadians, but looking after our own interests. We should, in my opinion, abstain from all mention of one million dollars, or any other sum ; otherwise the Canadian Government may say that on payment or expenditure of that sum they will have completed their bargain. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I rise, Sir, to defend my English. This clause was settled after much consideration, in the first place emanating from the Hon. Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works. I conceive that the words — “ and that a sum of not less than $1,000,000 “ shall be expended in every year, from and after three years from the date of Union, in “ actualy constructing the initial sections of such Railway from the Seaboard of British “ Columbia, to connect with the Railway system of Canada,” fully convey the meaning that it was intended they should. The language means that the expenditure should be within this Colony, and it can mean nothing else. The schoolmaster cannot have been where the Hon. Member has just visited, or he would not have so misconstrued this clause. I may confirm what the Hon. Chief Commissioner says, that if in communication with the Canadian Govern- ment it is found that they will not consent to the Railway, it is thought that we may obtain some equivalent. I must vote against the amendment of the Hon. Member for Victoria District (Mr. DeCosmos), as it proposes to enter into details affecting particular localities. I regret that the Hon. Member, who usually takes such large and extended views, should in this instance have taken so small and sectional a view of so large a scheme. The whole country will be just as much benefited by the Railway as any one part of it. The Hon. and learned Member for Victoria City proposes a guarantee and a penalty, but he has not shown how he could enforce the penalty if we cannot compel the fulfilment of the terms. I think that the self-interests of Canada will be so identified with those of British Columbia that we shall require no further guarantee. If more is required, as the Hon. Member for New Westminster says, we have the assurance of the Imperial Government — the Queen’s proclamation. I cannot say that I think that the Canadian interests are purely commercial. I have lived in Canada for several years, and while there did not regret to see the country divided against itself. Now, there is a national feeling growing up in that promising young country; her inhabitants are becoming more British in their feeling. I believe that Canada will, as she has heretofore done, carry out the terms she makes in honour and good faith. It will be to her interest to do so ; it will be to her interest to satisfy the interests of British Columbia. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — The question of the Railway should be put in a practical form. The people want a Railway from the head of navigation into the interior. Unless we get 92 Confederation Debate. immediate benefit, I hold we had better have no Railway at all [laughter]. The resolution of my Hon. colleague (Mr. DeCosmos) will give us immediate prosperity. Unless we get immediate advantage it is very little use at all. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — T here is one word in the Hon. Attorney-General’s speech that I desire to reply to. He said that my recommendation goes too much into matters of detail. I find as much detail in the Organic Act with reference to Railway communication to Halifax. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I have a recommendation to move, bearing on the Coach Road, as follows : — “ That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency, recommending that Clause 8 “ may be so altered as to include the section of the main trunk road of the Colony lying between Yale and New Westminster, in the Coach Road which the Dominion Government is to be asked “ to construct within three years from the date of Union.” I think, Sir, that it is obvious that if Canada is to be asked to construct a grand trunk road it is equally important that she should add a connecting link which is wanting. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — If we can get the Dominion Government to make this communicat- ing link it will be a benefit to the whole Mainland. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — I shall support the recommendation of the Mon. Member for New Westminster. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — This recommendation is open to the same objection as the proposal of the Hon. Member for Victoria District. I must oppose it on principle. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — It was intended to add the words “and maintain” after “ construct and open for traffic.” The words have inadverently been omitted. I propose to remedy the mistake, and I therefore) move a respectful address to His Excellency suggesting that the words “ and maintain ” be added between the words “ such ” and “ traffic,” in the fourth line. The Chairman put the recommendation of the Hon. Mr. Robson, which was carried; then the recommendation of the Hon. Chief Commissioner, which was carried. The recommendations of the Hon. Mr. Wood and of the Hon. Mr. DeCosmos, were put and lost. Clause 8 was then passed as read. Clause 9 was next read by the Chairman : — “ 9. The Dominion shall erect and maintain, at Victoria, a Marine Hospital and a Lunatic “ Asylum, either attached to the Hospital, or separate, as may be considered most convenient. “ The Dominion shall also erect and maintain a Penitentiary, or other principal Prison, at “ such place in the Colony as she may consider most suitable for that purpose.” The Hon. Attorney-General moved the adoption of this clause. The Hon. Mr. ROBSON said: — Sir, upon this clause I have to move a recommendation that the Penitentiary shall be at New Westminster. I think that it will be admitted, on all hands, that the Penitentiary ought to be at New Westminster. Victoria and Esquimalt are named as sites for particular things, and why not New Westminster? Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — I second the recommendation of the Hon. Member for New Westminster. I think the Mainland ought to be considered ; it is of course a matter of some consequence. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — As a member from the Mainland I shall oppose the recommenda- tion. I am in favour of centralizing buildings. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — Hon. Members seem to lose sight of the words “ or principal Prison.” This does not mean exactly a Penitentiary, or other principal Prison for reforming criminals ; the existing prisons are too small for the purpose, and this really means a prison for the detention of prisoners. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — T he Dominion Government are bound, under the Organic Act, to provide a Penitentiary. This, I suppose, means more than the Organic Act contemplates; it means a Prison. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — Yes, that is the meaning; it means more than the Organic Act contemplates. Hon. Mr. WOOD — I think the Penitentiary ought to be in the best and most central place; wherever the prison can be best maintained. I would leave it to the Dominion Government to decide the place. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — Why should not Victoria be struck out of this clause altogether? Confederation Debate. 93 Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I did not suggest New Westminster in any local or sectional spirit. I rather did it to divest the clause of local and sectional spirit ; though, at present, population, and other things point to Victoria as the proper place for a Marine Hospital and Lunatic Asylum ; but we must look to the future, the population must ultimately be largest on the Mainland. [Hon. Mr. Ring — “ No, no.”] Surely the Hon. Member for Nanaimo will not assert that the population of the Island will in time to come exceed that of the Mainland. I have no desire to give any sectional complexion to the Resolutions. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — Sir, I desire to say that in my opinion the Penitentiary will ultimately be on the Mainland, perhaps at New Westminster or Burrard Inlet, where it is probable the Railway will come. I can easily believe that the Hon. Member for New Westminster does not advocate New Westminster from local motives, but I must defend the Resolution as it stands. I think it better to leave it to the people who find the money to select the place. The position is not the same as regards the Marine Hospital. It should be at Victoria or Esquimalt, or at some intermediate place, on account of this being the head quarters of the Navy ; just as I think Esquimalt is the proper place for the Dock. I believe that New Westminster will be the place, but I cannot, on principle, vote for the recommendation. The Chairman put the recommendation of the Hon. Mr. Robson to the Committee — Lost. Clause 9 was then passed as read. The Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I move the adoption of Clause 10, which reads thus : — “ 10. Efficient Coast Mail Steam Service, in connection with the Post Office, shall be e'stab- “ lished and maintained by the Government of the Dominion, between Victoria and New West- “ minster, Nanaimo, and such other places as may require such services.” Until we have roads within the Colony, these services must be carried on for some time to come by water. I consider it to be a very proper item. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I suggest the addition of Puget Sound. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I object to such an addition, because Puget Sound doe& not come within Coast Mail Service. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — Then are we to suppose there are to be no other Ports of Entry, other than Victoria? [“No, no, no,” from all sides.] The Chairman put the recommendation of the Hon. Mr. DeCosmos, which was lost. Clause 10 was then passed as read. The Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I move the adoption of Clause 11, which is a general proposition, which will, I hope, meet with the approbation of the House ; it is as follows : — “ 11. Whatever encouragement, advantages, and protection are afforded by the Dominion “ Government to the Fisheries of any of its Provinces, shall be extended in similar proportion “ to British Columbia, according to its requirements for the time being.” Clause 11 was passed as read. The Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I move the adoption of Clause 12, which reads thus : — “ 12. British Columbia shall participate, in fair proportion, in any measures which may be “ adopted and Funds which may be appropriated by the Dominion for the encouragement of “ Immigration.” Passed as read. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I now move the adoption of Clause 13. The working of this clause is familiar to this Council from the debate which has already taken place. The basis is the population of 120,000 up to the date, which is left blank. The clause is this : — “ 13. British Columbia shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by Four Members, “ and by Eight Members in the House of Commons, until the year 18 , and thereafter the “ Representation in the Senate and the House of Commons shall be increased, subject to the “ provisions of ‘ The British North America Act, 1867.’ ” Hon. Mr. DRAKE — Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a difficulty. The Organic Act, section 51, provides for the re-adjustment of the representation after the census of 1871 ; and that the representation shall be based on the proportion of 65 — the number that Quebec now has — to the population of Quebec. It ought to exist at this number until 1881, or 1891. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I would remark that in my opinion Clause 51 does not apply ; we come in under Clause 146. The Hon. Members now representing Victoria City and District (Messrs. Helmcken and DeCosmos), when they proposed to telegraph were a little late. However if we now fix the date, for which a blank is purposely left, that will settle the matter beyond any doubt. 94 Confederation Debate. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — In my opinion, Sir, we are better off than if we were included. The only thing we have to do is to fix a date. If we put the date back to a remote period, we might be doing ourselves an injustice ; for we might be entitled to more. I would put if off for 20 years, filling up the date by inserting 1891. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — I think ten years quite enough, we shall have more than 120,000 in that time, and be entitled to increased representation. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — M r. Chairman, during the previous debate an Hon. Member referred to 120,000 as the basis of representation, as well as the basis of population. We find this echoed by others, last, but not least, by the Hon. Attorney-General himself. I am surprised to find the Hon. and learned gentleman setting this up as a basis. For the basis of represen- tation under the Organic Act was the basis of representation allowed to Quebec, that is, one member for every 20,000. It is proposed that we shall have eight members ; then the popu- lation ought to be 160,000 ; but it is only set up as 120,000, which number would only entitle us to six members. Now, Sir, I have no objection to getting eight members for the House of Commons, and four for the Senate; but I do object to Hon. Members and newspapers spreading abroad statements which have no foundation in fact. I think our population has been over estimated. It is going abroad that 120,000 is the proper foundation for representation; I say it is not so. The honest straightforward and manl.y course is for our Government to say to the Dominion Government, that it is necessary for us to have a larger representation on territorial grounds. The whole thing resolves itself into expediency ; beyond expediency I say that no one can find a fulcrum for the assertion. I would cheerfully support twelve and six so far as it goes. But I do denounce that want of principle and want of truth that surrounds this basis. There is another question about the representation to which due attention does not seem to have been given ; it is this : the electoral qualification in Canada is too high, and it will be most objectionable to have the same qualification thrust upon us. The qualification of members may safely be left to the Dominion Government. But that of electors is too high, and will be a source of irritation, which the Government should endeavour to remove now. I should have moved a recommendation as to this, but from the treatment which my amendments have received in this House, I am inclined to let it pass, and I shall move my amendments before my constituents. On motion of the Hon. Mr. Dewdney, the Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Several Members having left the House, on motion of the Hon. Mr. Robson the Committee sat again. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — Mr. Chairman, I find the average of representation in the Dominion Parliament is one member to 15,000. That, on the basis of 120,000, gives eight members. Nova Scotia has 19 members for 39,000, New Brunswick has 12, Newfoundland has 8 members. All we have to do is to take care that we are not included in the census of 1871. Our number cannot be diminished, so we may put it at 1881 safely. As for fictitious numbers, it is useless to talk about it. Hon. Mr. CARRALL — I move that the date “ 1881 ” be inserted. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I do not see that of necessity the number cannot be decreased. I would name a more distant date. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I would not take a more distant date, because I think we shall have a larger population in 1881. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — From Section 61 of the Organic Act, I think our number might be reduced. I think it improbable we shall have a population of 120,000 in 1881. And if we have not that number then, I think it possible that we may be reduced. I shall therefore vote for 1891. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL— I shall support the date 1891. Hon. Mr. WOOD — I move a recommendation to insert the words “ not less than,” before “ 4 and 8,” and after the word “ eighteen ” to insert “ 91.” Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I cannot see the use or necessity for the words “ no less.” Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I think the words are important. We might in 1S81 be entitled to more or less. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — I hold to 91, because I think it likely we might be reduced if we fix the date at 81. Confederation Debate. 95 Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I think we ought to fix a minimum number and keep to it, and a date, because I think that when the distrust wears away, British Columbia may be content with three in the Senate, and six in the House of Commons. The Chairman put the recommendation of the Hon. Mr. Drake, to fill up the blank with the figures “ 91.” Carried. The Chairman put the recommendation of the Hon. Mr. Wood — “ That the number of members to the Commons should never be less than 8, and to the Senate never less than 4.” Carried. Clause 13 was then passed as read. The Committee rose, and reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Friday at one o'clock. Friday, March 18th, 1870. The Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I rise to move the adoption of clause 14 : — “ 14. The Union shall take effect on such day as Her Majesty by Order in Council (on “ an Address to that effect, in terms of the 146th Section of ‘ The British North America “Act, 1867,’) may direct: and British Columbia may, in such Address,* specify the Districts, “ Counties, or Divisions, if any, for which any of the four Senators to whom the Colony shall “ be entitled shall be named, the Electoral Districts for which — and the time within which — “ the first Election of Members to serve in the House of Commons shall take place.” These terms, or rather the terms which come back from Canada, will of necessity come before the new electoral body, whose existence His Excellency has shadowed forth, and the particulars as to the division into districts must be left for the decision of that House. It is impossible at present to specify the time. . Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — C annot an approximate time be named? Besides there are other things upon which the country will want information ; such, for instance, as whether the voting for members will be by ballot, and what is to be the qualification of voters. I think it ought to be fixed. The Dominion law is more liberal than that to which the people of this country have been accustomed. I believe in the ballot, but it will be better to leave it to the constituencies. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — This clause has been left general, that it may be settled by the newly-constituted Council. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — If there is a qualification for the House of Commons it must be general for the whole Dominion. At present I believe the qualification is that existing in the Provinces before union. Ultimately there must be a qualification for the whole Dominion. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — There is no general law for qualification. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — The clause is indefinite and dangerous. The Dominion qualifica- tion will virtually disfranchise half the British settlers in British Columbia. We are legislating in the interests of the people ; this ought to be determined at once. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I believe in British subjects, having a fixed residence, and of a certain age, voting in British Columbia. It should be a residential manhood suffrage. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — We cannot deal with the subject now. It is impossible to divide the Colony into districts until we know haw many Senators we are to have. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — Mr. Chairman, I move a recommendation to strike out the words “ if any.” Hon. Mr. WOOD — I think the words ought to stand. The Organic Act says that Senators shall be selected for districts ; but it may be desirable that Senators should be appointed for the whole Colony. They are nominated, and nominated because they are the best men that the Governor can obtain. [No, no, no — Hon. DeCosmos.J I believe the Executive are in the best position to know whether the principle of appointing Senators is best or whether they should go for the whole Colony. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — As this stands it throws the whole power into the hands of the Canadians. The Lieutenant-Governor will be a Canadian and will name Canadians. We ought to know by whom these appointments are to be made. 96 Confederation Debate. Hon. Me. ROBSON — It is a great pity that these sectional differences should be allowed to prevail. We ought to consider ourselves British Columbians. The Governor-General, with . jthe consent of his Council, appoints the Lieutenant-Governor, and the Lieutenant-Governor, with the advice of his Cabinet, recommends the Senators. [No, no — Hon. Dr. Helmcken.] ]Yes, it is so. He recommends to the Governor-General, who appoints. It is a great pity to v jraise these disputes about Englishmen and Canadians. Hon. Me. HUMPHREYS — It is all very well to talk that way. I maintain that the English- men sitting at this table have said less as to nationality than the Canadians. We want to be governed by British Columbians. Hon. Db. HELMCKEN — We had better drop these nationalities. Hon. Me. WOOD — The Hon. Member for New Westminster should not be angry because we want to provide against the possibility of ill-feeling by timely precaution. “ Safe, bind, safe find/’ When the Governor-General appoints Senators, if I understand it right, he appoints the political friends of his Cabinet. If we are to have Responsible Government there will always be some check; if not we may be in the position of having members selected by the Lieutenant-Governor without the assistance of any responsible Cabinet. [Hear, hear — Hon. DeCosmos.] A Canadian Lieutenant-Governor will act with the same sort of feeling that the English Government will. Senators will be selected by favouritism, and supporters of Confed- eration will doubtless be selected in this Colony, unless we have Responsible Government and Representative Institutions in full vigor. Canadian interests will doubtless be very prominent in this Colony, and power acts injuriously on the human mind — it is one of the corruptors of the mind. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I should be very sorry to see the words “ if any ” struck out ; their retention leaves the matter open. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten that Senators must be residents of British Columbia. Probably they may be selected on the ground of their having an appreciation of the whole country, instead of a section only. It may be that Senators will be appointed for the whole Colony. Hon. Me. HOLBROOK — After hearing the explanations of the Hon. Attorney- General, I feel more desirous to press my recommendations, to show that we from the Mainland desire to have our fair share of representation. I think the words most objectionable. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I find by the Resolutions passed at the Conference of Delegates in London, that Senators were to be taken from the Legislative Council. We are told by the Government that we are to go into Confederation without Responsible Government; then we ought to have a guarantee that the first Senators shall be representative men, and that they shall not be chosen by the Governor and put into office for life without reference to the people. Hon. Mb. HUMPHREYS — I shall move a recommendation that the first Senators shall be nominated by the Legislature. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — The position will be worth $600. The difficulty will be to get anyone to go there. People are chary of going into the Legislative Council now, and they will not be very anxious to go to Canada. As to choosing Senators from one place, it is out of the question. And it is equally out of the question to appoint them by the Legislative Council. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — We are here as the agents of the people, delegates in point of fact, and we are bound to legislate in accordance with the well understood wishes of the people. In reference to having these Senators appointed, we are bound to see what they are and whether the people are likely to approve of our acts. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Hon. Members must remember that these Resolutions will be submitted to the people, a much-abused term, as the Hon. Member for Victoria District has truly said, and our common object must be to make the terms acceptable to the people. They will have to pass upon them in the last resort, and to say we will or we will not have them. Hon. Mr. PEMBERTON — The objection seems to me to be to dividing British Columbia into districts. It is a qualification for Senators that they must reside in their districts ; there- fore, I think it will not be desirable to divide the Colony into districts. I think the clause should stand as it is. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — One matter deserves attention in connection with this item. I believe that the indemnity to Senators is $600 in a lump sum, without travelling expenses. I think it is now commuted, and this would place British Columbia Senators at a disadvantage with others. It is no hardship to other Provinces, but would be most unfair to British Columbia. Travelling expenses both ways should be allowed. Confederation Debate. 07 Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — My conviction is that mileage is now allowed. If I am right, ten cents a mile both ways is allowed. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — It is the prerogative of the Governor ; we had better vote for the repeal of the Organic Act. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — Under the proposed constitution Senators would be chosen by an irresponsible Governor, on the advice of an irresponsible Minister. Those who own this country do not want such a state of things to be. Hon. Mr. WOOD — It is better to bear in mind that the Organic Act applies to three, or at the most four, Provinces : Canada East, Canada West, and the Maritime Provinces. Here we want exceptional terms. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — Hon. Members seem to assume that we are going to enter Confedera- tion without Responsible Government. This I repudiate. I say we shall enter with privileges equal to other Provinces. I decline to assume anything else. With regard to the appointment of Senators by the Legislative Council, I would ask by what Council? By this or by the new House? It would not satisfy the people that a Council nominated by the Governor should appoint; and it is yet to be seen that the new House, as shadowed forth by the Governor, would be less objectionable than this one. We are entirely in the dark. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — As I understand it, these Senators are to be appointed after Confederation, and consequently the recommendation refers to the new Council. His Excel- lency says that he will give a majority to the popular members, and I have no doubt he means what he says. I believe him to be a most estimable gentleman ; but I have a feeling that he has been misled. It is not likely that in a few weeks’ travel he could understand the wants and feelings of the people. You must eat, drink, and sleep among them to understand a people. If I were a great Government contractor I would support the Government. I ask some reason of rank. It would be very easy to give us a majority of two or three popular members; but unless we have a large majority of representative members the Government might still get their own way. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I desire, Mr. Chairman, to answer two points. I believe we shall fight for and have Responsible Government. In referring to the Governor’s speech, the Hon. Member for Lillooet says the new Council will be just similar to this ; that it will still be unrepresentative. I cannot see why there should be this doubt about the constitution of the new Council. If there were to be only a majority of two or three the Council would still be unrepresentative ; and the people will not be contented with such a form of Government. The argument of the Hon. Member for Lillooet refutes itself in the most conclusive way. The people do not want an unrepresentative House not having their confidence to elect their Senators. Hon. Mr. RING — What have we to do with the Organic Act? Why should we put ourselves under the iron points of the Organic Act, and be dragged under a harrow all the days of our lives? If the Act is wrong it must be repealed. Now is the time to express our opinion. The Chairman put the recommendation of Mr. Humphreys, which on division was lost, and of Mr. Robson, which on division was lost. Clause 14 passed as read. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Sir, I rise to move the adoption of clause fifteen, which is as follows : — “ 15. The constitution of the Executive authority and of the Legislature of British Columbia, “ shall, subject to ‘ The British North America Act, 1867,’ continue as existing at the time of “ union, until altered under the authority of the Act.” And before touching upon the merits of the Resolution itself, I wish to explain that the time which must necessarily elapse before Confederation will allow ample opportunity to procure a change in the Constitution, and I desire to impress upon Hon. Members that this question of alteration in the form of Government is not necessarily connected with the Resolu- tion now before the House. I make these observations in consequence of observing a notice of the Hon. Member for Lillooet, on the subject of Responsible Government, on the Orders of the Day. On behalf of the Government, I desire to say that there is no desire whatever to shirk the full discussion of the question of Responsible Government. I -throw the door open and invite the fullest discussion ; but, as the question, of the change of the Constitution of this Colony is one that lies between this Colony and the Imperial Government, it does not form an item in these Resolutions. Therefore, I would ask Hon. Members to postpone the consideration 98 Confederation Debate. of Responsible Government and pass these Resolutions. On a question of such importance, a special day, irrespective of these Resolutions, should be set apart for discussion. There is no desire whatever on the part of the Government to shirk the question. The matter of (the Constitution is under negotiation between this Colony and the Imperial Government at this moment. .Supposing these Resolutions are passed, other negotiations must take place. First, Canada has to accept them ; then there is reference back to British Columbia to submit to the popular vote, so that there will be full time allowed for the new institutions to be inaugurated. If the people say that they do not want the terms, but that they want Responsible Government, they will undoubtedly get it. I cannot conceive our going into Confederation w T ith a Crown Council ; we must expect to go in with fuller Representative Institutions. If we do not have Confederation under these terms, we shall, nevertheless, have Representative Institutions ; and a majority, under the Imperial Act, will have the power to change and get Responsible Government, — that is, party government. My point is, that it is unnecessary to drag in Responsible Government now ; it is not necessary to mix it up with these Resolutions. Our vote on this Resolution need not be decided on Responsible Government, or party govern- ment. We shall still be open to send any other Resolution on the subject of party government to the Governor. I, therefore, throw out the invitation to discuss it more fully on a future day. I feel sure that if this course is adopted the discussion will be more free. Hon. Mr. RING — I think, Sir, that His Excellency’s message, if I may so call these Resolutions, invites us to discuss Responsible Government. Sir, we have been in former days favoured with Representative Institutions, and have been defrauded by them. I desire to know what we have gained by the Irresponsible Government that has for some years past oppressed us. What, I ask, has been done about the various questions that have come up — the Sisters’ Rocks, the Court of Appeal? The answer has been no funds. Where do the funds come from? From the people. If the Governor heard the views of the people, he might, perhaps, change his views. I ask Hon. Members here, who have lived under Responsible Government in Great Britain, [Hear, hear, from Mr. DeCosmos] not to be recreant to their country. Hon. Members on the other side may say they are against Responsible Government and refer to a former House of Assembly of Vancouver Island. This is no argument. I trust that Hon. Members loving British institutions will be true to their country. Because there are defects in some Assemblies, do not let us run into the abject error of saying we are not fit for self-government. We have borne this too long. Do not let us hand over to Canada our consent to submit to this degradation. Let us not say that we are not fit ; that we surrender the question of self-government. Who, I ask, has examined the people? Who has tried them and discovered whether or not they are competent to exercise the privileges of Responsible Govern- ment? There are many points in this clause which demand discussion, but I am not going to exhaust myself. I say, however, that the question of Responsible Government must be con- sidered. I throw the gauntlet down. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — Mr. Chairman, as mover of the Resolution on Responsible Government, I do not think it necessary to take up the time of the House. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that the official members are convinced that the people are in favour of Responsible Government. As a student of history, young as I am, I begin to realize this truth : that all liberty and improvement has been infused into communities by the shock of revolution, or violent agitation. There is no hope of political improvement in time of tran- quillity and without agitation. The official members of this Council are remarkable for their profound indifference to right and wrong. It is in their interest to postpone the settlement of this question of Responsible Government. I hold that there is a great necessity for this Resolution. The question ought to be settled now and for ever. Why should we be com- pelled, year after year, to fight these battles for reform over and over again? Let this question be settled so that we may have leisure for other things. Hon. gentlemen say the people are not in favour of Responsible Government. Time will show. I say that they will almost as a unit insist upon it, and I lay down this proposition — no Responsible Government, no Confederation ; no Confederation, no pensions. Instead of tightening the Governmental reins they should be slackened. If Responsible, Government is not granted these officials will still lose their power ; for then, in all probability, a mightier nation than Canada will take charge of us. I am in favour of Confederation if it gives us permanent advantages, not otherwise. We must have a free constitution. My conscience tells me that my votes on these Resolutions are not proippted Confederation Deb/\.te. 99 by selfish motives. If the people get Responsible Government I am satisfied. His Excellency admits that he would not like to extend the liberal form of Government to this Colony. My opinion is that there is no community unfit to govern themselves. Government is not a com- plicated machine. There is very little difference between carrying on a Government and carrying on a business. One-half of the depression in this Colony is, in my opinion, attributable to the despotic form of government. Just fancy the head of a mercantile house allowing his clerks to carry on the whole business of the firm as they pleased. [Hear, hear, from Mr. DeCosmos.] Without Responsible Government you will lose Confederation.' It is not necessary to say any more. Let us have something like the Government of Ontario. Those whom I have the honour to represent sent me here to advocate Responsible Government. I will read from a petition now in my hands. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — This is out of order. I rise to call the Hon. Member to order. This is not the time to present a petition. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — T he Hon. Member has a right to read from it. CHAIRMAN — The Hon. Member cannot read from a petition which has not been presented to and received by this House. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — Mr. Chairman, I request that you will be careful in ruling on this matter. Hon. Members have the right to read from documents to show the views of their constituents. It is alluded to as the best means of acquainting the House with the views of the constituency which the Hon. Member represents. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — On the other hand, I would say that the right of petitioners must be respected ; and if Hon. Members are allowed to read petitions, then petitions can be got in by a side wind. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — In my opinion the Hon. Member has a right to read from a document of this kind. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — Having looked at this document I see it is not a petition to this House, and may therefore be quoted. The CHAIRMAN, having looked at the document, decided that it might be quoted. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS then read a portion of the prayer of the petition, which purported to be to Her Majesty the Queen. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — The Honourable and learned Attorney-General has appealed to those Honourable Members who are in favour of Responsible Government to postpone the question for the present. I should be glad to accede to the request if the Honourable and learned gentleman will meet the objections that present themselves to my mind as to that course. In my opinion, to vote for this section now will preclude the possibility of our bringing on the subject of Responsible Government in the House this Session. We shall be met with the assertion that it has been already discussed and decided for this Session. I am quite sure the Honourable and learned Attorney-General does not wish to catch us in a trap. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Certainly not. As Honourable Members have insisted upon opening the question, I now propose to go on with the discussion. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I am most anxious to meet the views of the Government in this matter, if possible; but, as we are asked to vote aye or no upon this clause, I say that in voting for it we shall be casting our votes in direct opposition to Responsible Government. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — The discussion must go on now. You have begun ; it is too late to withdraw. The lists are closed, and the gang of battle down. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — Mr. Chairman, I will address myself to the question before the House, which I feel to be the most important clause in these terms ; a question, in fact, which underlies the peace, prosperity, and happiness of British Columbia; a question which, if carelessly or improperly treated now, may eventuate in the most serious consequences to the Colony; for I believe the people are as ready now as in earlier days to fight for freedom, and to shed their blood in defence of their political rights. It becomes us, then, to be candid with ourselves and with each other — very serious, firm, and dispassionate in discussing this clause, as it might result in most disastrous consequences. As I read the clause, it places it beyond the power of the colonists to obtain the form of Government which they, as I believe, really want ; and if we pass it we shall obtain no more than that slightly more liberal form which is fore- shadowed in His Excellency's Speech, under the cover of Representative Government. Pro- foundly impressed as I am with the gravity of the subject we are now called upon to consider, 100 Confederation Debate. any remarks I may be enabled to offer will proceed rather from a sense of duty to my con- stituents and to my country than from any hope of changing the views or influencing the vote of any Honourable Member. What is Responsible Government? I have been led to believe that considerable confusion of ideas exists upon this point ; and I was the more impressed with this upon listening to the remarks of the Honourable Member for Cariboo, a few days ago. That Honourable gentleman compared the introduction of Responsible Government into this Colony to applying the machinery of the Great Eastern to a dairy churn. Now, Sir, Responsible Government is not a quantity ; it is a principle ; and as such it is applicable to the Great Eastern or to a dairy churn, — capable of being applied to a tiny lady’s watch. It is a principle admirably adapted to the largest communities in the Old World. It is a principle admirably adapted to the smallest communities in the New World. It is a principle that may be worked out in a cabinet of a hundred. It is a principle which may be successfully worked out in a cabinet of three. Without it no Government can, in the true sense, be called a people’s Government. All true Governments derive their power from the people. All true Govern- ments must be responsible to the people. Responsible Government is, then, a principle which may be adapted to, and successfully worked out in, this community. If this proposition is incontrovertible, which I maintain it is, who can say that British Columbia is not large enough for Responsible Government? There are men here of ability to form a Cabinet. The Cabinet of the day is, under the responsible system, the Government, just so long as it has the confidence of a majority of the representatives of the people in the House. In the event of that confidence being lost, one of two courses is open : The Ministers place their resignation in the hands of the Governor, who commonly calls upon a prominent member of the opposition to form a Ministry ; or, if they believe that the House does not truly represent the people upon the question at issue, they advise a dissolution and an appeal to -the country. What would Responsible Government have to do here? In dealing with this question I, of course, assume British Columbia to be a Province of the Dominion; and, I confess, that were it otherwise, were it proposed to remain a separate Colony, the case would be different. I do not say that even then I would not advocate the introduction of Responsible Government, but that advocacy might be less hearty and less firm. Regarding British Columbia as a Province of the Dominion, the chief objections are removed by the removal to Ottawa of all those larger and more complex questions of legislation which might threaten to crack the brain of our embryo statesmen. The Local Government would alone have to deal with local questions, and thus it would have very simple duties to discharge — scarcely more difficult, in fact, than those falling within the functions of a large municipality in Canada. Are the people in British Columbia fit for it? And here I would express my sincere regret that the representative of Her Majesty in this Colony has felt it to be his duty to pronounce an adverse opinion. I will yield to no one, either in this House or out of it, in entertaining a high respect for His Excellency, for his talent, experience, and honesty of purpose ; but I do say, — and I say it with respect, more in sorrow than in anger, — that I cannot think his knowledge of the people of this Colony was such as to justify him in so early pronouncing upon their fitness for self-government. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — The Honourable Member for New Westminster will, I am sure, pardon the interruption, but I feel it to be my duty to deny that the Governor ever said, or that any member of the Government has said or thought, that the people of British Columbia are unfit for self-government. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I thank the honourable and learned Attorney-General, and I appreciate his motives. There is no one less disposed than myself to speak or write one word calculated to weaken the hands of the Government, or cause the well-deserved popularity of His Excellency to wane; but yet I cannot conceal from myself the fact that a mere play upon words will not mend matters. Whether it is the Colony or its inhabitants that has been pronounced unfit for self-government, the practical results remain the same ; and it is with these we alone are con- cerned. From my own knowledge of the people, and it is the result of eleven years’ contact with them, I have no hesitation in saying they are pre-eminently fitted for self-government. There are scores of men in this country with calloused palms and patched garments, well fitted by natural endowments, education, and practical experience in the working of Responsible Government in other Colonies, to' occupy seats either in the Legislative Assembly or in the Cabinet of British Columbia. He who would judge of the intelligence and mental acquirements of men in this Colony by outward appearance and by present occupation, certainly would not judge righteous judgment. The opinion of His Excellency the Governor to the contrary not- Confederation Debate. 101 withstanding, I boldly assert that the people of British Columbia are fit for Responsible Government. Do they want it? Doubtless there are those in this House, possibly even in the unofficial ranks, who will deny that the people of British Columbia really desire to have Responsible Government under Confederation. It is sometimes difficult to account for diver- gence of opinion ; but I venture to think that I have the weight of both argument and evidence on my side when I assert, as I do, that the great body of the people — certainly an overwhelming majority — do earnestly and intelligently desire that form of government. It is difficult to believe that any man who has given due thought to the subject can possibly hesitate. Look at the position this Colony would occupy under Confederation, without the full control of its own affairs — a condition alone attainable by means of Responsible Government. While the other Provinces only 'surrender Federal questions to the Central Government, we would surrender all. While the other Provinces with which it is proposed to confederate upon equal and equitable terms retain the fullest power to manage all Provincial matters, British Columbia would surrender that power. Her local as well as her national affairs would virtually be managed at Ottawa. Could a union so unequal be a happy and enduring one? The compact we are about to form is for life. Shall we take into it the germ of discord and disruption? The people desire change ; but they liave no desire to exchange the Imperial heel for the Canadian heel. They desire political manumission. I stand here, and, in the name of my ancestors, protest before Heaven against the surrender of constitutional rights purchased by the best blood of our race — a priceless legacy we have no right to barter away, even if we would. We owe it to our ancestors to preserve entire those rights which they have delivered to our care. We owe it to posterity not to suffer their dearest inheritance to be destroyed. But, if it were possible for us to be insensible of these sacred claims, there is yet an obligation binding upon ourselves, from which nothing can acquit us ; a personal interest which we cannot surrender. To alienate even our own rights would be a crime as much more enormous than suicide, as a life of civil security and political freedom is superior to a condition of serfdom ; and if life be the bounty -of Heaven, we scornfully reject the noblest part of the gift if we consent to surrender that certain rule of living, and those constitutional rights, without which the condition of human nature is not only miserable but contemptible. I know but too well that the people of this Colony have, during these years past, been unjustly and unconstitutionally deprived of their rights ; but the perpetration of a wrong in the past can constitute no argument for perpetrating that wrong in the future ; and it would appear a most fitting moment, when a new constitution is about to be offered, to demand the full restoration of political rights of which we have been for some time so unjustly deprived. A word about the constitution which the Governor proposes to confer upon this Colony. Regarding it in the dim light shed upon it by the Executive, it is not unfair to assume that there will be one more popular Member taken into the Executive, and that the people will have a majority of two in the Legislature. Let us suppose that the Legislative Council has 20 Members, 11 elected by the people and 9 appointed by the Governor. Three are taken from the 11 into the mysterious chamber of the Executive, where they become — I will not say corrupted' — manipulated ; educated to see things somewhat differently from what they saw them before. In a House so constituted, is it unfair, is it uncharitable to conclude that, on all Government measures at least, the Government would command a majority? Take 3 from 11, and 8 remain. Take 8 from 20, and how many remain to the Government? Is it not 12? Where, then, is the people’s majority under the proposed constitution? And yet I am constantly told that this is not the proper time to ask for Responsible Government — that if the people want it they will possess, under the new constitution, the ready means of obtaining it. Sir, I do not see the matter in that light. I see in the proposed constitution a condition of things which promises a five years’, possibly a ten years’, agitation for what the people are prepared for now, desire now, are entitled to now. All Governments are naturally conservative. All persons holding positions of honour, power, or emolument, are conservative. Think you those holding office by appointment will favour or promote a change which would make them responsible to the people — exchange their commission from the ■ Crown for the more brittle tenure of “public opinion”? On the contrary, we should find those in power opposed to the people in their struggle for Responsible Government; and how long the struggle might last, it would be idle to predict. Besides, the people of Canada do not desire to see British Columbia occupying any such false position. They know too well the value of free institutions, and their adaptation to new countries, to think of withholding them from us. These institutions were not won without a long and bloody struggle, even in Canada ; and the prosperity and content- 102 Confederation Debate. ment of that people date from the inauguration of Responsible Government. The failure of representative institutions, formerly enjoyed upon this Island, is frequently cited as an argument against Responsible Government being introduced here. I admit the partial failure of these institutions. That failure was not, however, on account of the institutions being “ representa- tive,” but because they were not “ responsible.” The essential principle was wanting. There was no constitutional connecting link — no bond of sympathy between those who sat by the will of the people and those who sat contrary to, and in defiance of, that will. The system, painted, though it was, in popular dress, was rotten at the core — proved a delusion and a sham. The people, sometimes in indifference and contempt, permitted unsuitable men to be elected, and the whole thing came to rack and ruin. It is to avoid a repetition of that unseemly farce that the people demand that any new constitution which may be conferred upon this Colony shall be based upon the only true principle of responsibility. This question should be finally settled. The Colony desires political rest. To inaugurate a fresh political agitation with Union is most undesirable, and might lead to disastrous results. The possible consequences of a refusal to grant Responsible Government coincident with Confederation, is a part of the subject I almost hesitate to touch. I would neither prophecy, predict, nor threaten ; but I would ask the Govern- ment to read well and carefully the lessons written in blood in other countries. Human nature is much the same on both sides of this great continent. Has the Anglo-Saxon race become so utterly degenerate here that it is prepared to barter away for mere money subsidies those rights which were purchased with so much blood elsewhere? I utterly refuse to think so meanly of this people. We have seen that even the half-breeds at Red River have too much of the old blood in their veins to permit a fancied political wrong. I am not going to predict a rebellion here. Heaven grant there may be none. But I do feel it my duty to warn the Government against unnecessarily provoking such a possible contingency. Why should there be such an unaccountable antipathy to investing the people of British Columbia with those political powers enjoyed under the British Constitution? Why is. the present form of Government so unpopular with the people? I will tell you why. It is just because it is not a people’s Government. They had no hand in making it. They had none in working it. They can have none in unmaking it. Only let the people have a hand in forming the Government, in selecting men of their own choice to rule over them, and we would find a popular Government, a strong Government, strong in the heart and confidence of the people. The very same gentlemen who are unpopular now, because ruling without the consent of the people, would be popular then, because ruling by the act and with the consent of the people. The people of British Columbia are naturally a conservative people. Restore to them their political rights, and no Government would need to fear an undue desire for change. The people know best how to manage their own local affairs. Depend upon it, Sir, the people are seldom wrong in their opinions; in their sentiments they are never mistaken. Those now in power have a great responsibility resting upon them. Upon the manner in which they acquit themselves in regard to this very question may hang the most momentous consequences. Will they promote everlasting wellbeing, or precipitate untold evil? Heaven grant that they may do the right ! I stand here to-day to advise and warn, not to threaten and predict. The Government has a very grave responsibility in this matter, and may well take a lesson from other countries. The possible consequence of a refusal to grant a reasonable request may be a repetition of the Red River trouble. Let not the Government make a fatal mistake, or they may find themselves in a state of political agitation that may lead to the most serious consequences. I believe that, under circumstances analogous to what occurred in the Red River Territory, the Imperial Government would treat the inhabitants of this Colony with even more consideration. It would not be a question of bayonets and fleets to coerce this Colony, but it would be a question of what concessions ought to be made. I say that the Government have an opportunity now not only of shunning evil, but of doing a great work. Oh ! let not the Government make the fatal mistake of saying the people shall not manage their own affairs. Do not let them make the fatal mistake of compelling the people to reject these conditions at the polls. Now I have discharged a duty; I have said all I feel called upon to say at this stage. I have stated my own views and, I venture to think, those of an overwhelming majority of the people of British Columbia, as well as of my own con- stituents. I trust the Government will take care how they force a vote on this question, which affects this whole community. [“ Hear, hear.”] This is, in a sense, distinct from the conditions, and it is probable that the Governor must obtain what we are now asking from a different quarter. But, obtain it from where he will, it must, I say, be obtained. Confederation Debate. 103 I beg to move the following amendment, as meeting the case more fully than the resolution offered by the Hon. Member for Lillooet :<■ — “ Whereas no union can be either acceptable or satisfactory which does not confer upon the people of British Columbia as full control over their own local affairs as is enjoyed in the other Provinces with which it is proposed to confederate ; therefore, be it “ Resolved, That an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor, earnestly recommending that a Constitution based upon the principle of Responsible Government, as existing in the Province of Ontario, may be conferred upon this Colony, coincident with its admission into the Dominion of Canada.” Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Allow me to observe on this; that the Hon. Member is asking the Government to grant what it has no power to give. Hon. Mb. ROBSON — The Governor has promised to seek the power to grant us a new Constitution. We only ask that in that new Constitution we may have Responsible Govern- ment. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — M r. Chairman, I do not intend to occupy the House for many minutes. I agree with the Hon. Member for Lillooet, and I disagree with the Hon. Member for New Westminster. I think, Sir, that we ought to have representative institutions and Responsible Government, irrespective of Confederation. The Hon. Member for New West- minster’s proposition unites it with Confederation. I think this is a mistake ; but it is of no matter, so long as we get it. I look upon British Columbia as a municipality under the British Crown. Under Canada it will be a municipality with less power. Anyone who knows anything of municipal law know r s that it is based upon three principles : territory, authority, and respon- sibility. This Colony has the first two, and we are now asking for the third, and the terms sent down to the Council do not contain the elements of responsibility of the Executive to the people. Everything is tending to this point. Without responsibility, no matter how elective the new Council is, it will be a failure. The people want Responsible Government and repre- sentative institutions under any circumstances. I think the people would be traitors to themselves if they accepted any form of Government which had not the element of respon- sibility. I would rebel if there were enough like me in the Colony, and arrest every member of the Government that I thought was robbing me of my rights. I would go to a further extreme. However, I shall not trouble the House with a long speech on this matter, as I consider it of little use. This question ended, I am contented to leave this Council and go to my constituents. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask what all this breeze is about? It is perfectly clear to all that as soon as we enter the Confederacy the people of this country can have any form of Government they desire. I refuse to take up the issue without Con- federation, in a state of isolation. We are dealing with Confederation. I am, equally with the Hon. Member for New Westminster, aware of the priceless boon of responsibility which exists in England, which may fairly be called the standard-bearer of nations, and I am equally aware that the same responsibility does not exist in the United States. During the late war I was in the United States army. Stanton, the then Secretary of War, was a most unpopular man. They wanted to get rid of him, but he could not be removed. When I took the ground that Responsible Government was not expedient, it was not because I did not approve of the system. It is, I say, the wisest and best form of Government, but it is too cumbrous for this Colony. I will repeat my objections : The Council contains no men of influence, the con- stituencies are too remote, and the inhabitants are all engaged in bread-seeking ; there are few men of independent means who would take part in Responsible Government, and, consequently, the direction of public affairs would fall into the hands of men who are not fitted, or qualified to govern the country, or otherwise into the hands of Victorians ; neither of which I, for one, wish to see. How unfortunate it would be for Caribooites if the Hon. senior Member for Victoria (Dr. Helmcken) were elected for Cariboo. I say, then, that it must fall into bad hands, or into the hands of Victorians. I offer that argument as a British Columbian. ' The Executive Council do not care one fig what sort of Government the people take. The Executive say the question is one for the people to decide. We have a measure of responsibility now. The Hon. Member for New Westminster says that His Excellency will do certain things. I take his speech as it reads, and I have no doubt that a majority of the people’s representatives will sit round the board ; none know how great the majority will be. [Attorney-General — “ Hear, 104 Confederation Debate. hear.”] Responsible Government has never been made a distinct issue throughout the Colony. [“It has” — Mr. DeCosmos.] The Hon. Member says that it has; I say it has not. It has been named with Confederation, but not by itself ; and until it is made a separate question, my advice to the Governor will be not to grant it. The Governor has left you to choose any Government you deem best. Do you think it would be better to have as permanent heads of departments two or three gentlemen who are familiar with the wants of the Colony, or a moveable Ministry going out on a question of repairs to Cowichan Road, or something of that kind? These are amongst the things that you have to consider, and if, after due consideration, the people desire Responsible Government, they will have it. I am here to state that His Excellency the Governor has no wish or desire to keep back Responsible Government ; if he had any such desire, is it likely that he would have reconstituted his Executive Council so as to make it elective? I apprehend that people do not consider what they are talking about when they ask for Responsible Government ; they have not probably considered the failures that have been made in respect of Responsible Government. There have been some failures, as, for instance, in Jamaica and in Victoria. A class of people get into power under Responsible Government whom no person would like to have as rulers. There are petty interests mixed up with politics in small communities, which prevent the system working so well in them as in large countries like Great Britain, where there is a healthy tone and a vast population, and, consequently, great questions of national importance. I maintain that after Confederation the questions connected with local affairs will be so small, and so entirely connected with particular localities, that a staff of permanent heads of departments will be far better for the Colony than Responsible Government. I make this statement from conviction. I am perfectly free to take any course I like, notwithstanding I am an Executive Councillor. My position has not in any way curtailed my views. I could have advised Responsible Government if I had thought proper, and would have done so if I had thought it desirable for this Colony. If anyone believes that the Organic Act does not allow Responsible Government to be obtained at any time, let him move to make clause 19 specially applicable to this Colony. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — It is in the terms already, only it is not specially named. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — Well, name it specially and put it in; I will support it if anyone proposes it. We know what His Excellency’s intention is with regard to giving representation in the new Council, but we do not know the measure of it. If there is an overwhelming majority for Responsible Government in all districts, electors will take care to send Responsible Government Members to the next Council. If the people are determined to have this “ priceless boon,” let them send men who will say they will have it. I feel impelled to administer a soft and gentle rebuke to the Hon. Member for New Westminster, who has, I must confess, won my esteem by his manly, straightforward support of these Resolutions; but I must take exception to his language ; it has been too emphatic — unintentionally, of course — because led away by the subject. He has used inflammatory language which he had better not have uttered, language which was not exactly in accordance with what I conceive to be correct. That clause in the Governor’s speech which speaks of our not being fit to govern ourselves : Governor Musgrave has never said so ; if he had, I should have taken it as a personal insult. I say, as a British Columbian, I am capable of governing myself ; and if we can, individually, govern ourselves, it is fair to suppose that the Colony, as a whole, can govern itself. If you had the whole population comeatable altogether, so that they could be parallel like an army, and you could make them give expression to their views, and out of that get a Government, it might be practicable ; but instead of that, here we are with a scattered population, isolated centres separated from each other. The majority are here for the sole purpose of making money, and they don’t feel that anxiety that has been represented about Responsible Govern- ment; they want to be governed as cheaply as possible. If I am wrong, if it turns out at the polls that even a trifling majority are in favour of Responsible Government, they can have it. The iron heel of Canada is all nonsense. Governor Musgrave is the man we have to deal with, and I say that Responsible Government is a relief to any Governor, for it comes between him and the people. Governor Musgrave says that it is (I paraphrase) “my duty, with my “ experience, to give fair and frank advice to the people ; to tell them what I think is for their “ good. If they determine differently to my advice, the fault is with them.” Supposing that Governor Musgrave had put Responsible Government in as a condition, and had thrust it upon the people, would not the respectable minority who are against it have said — or possibly, and Confederation Debate. 105 as I think, probably, have said — His Excellency had acted unwisely? This question has been before the people; they would have been justified in jumping at the gilded bait of Responsible Government if the Government had not proposed a new system ; but as he has done so, the people will do well to consider before they swallowed the barbed hook that lies under the bait. I desire to disclaim speaking in the interest of officials; their position would, so far as I believe, not be injured in any way by the introduction of Responsible Government. Those among them who were commissioned in England (I mean the heads of departments) will be rendered so independent that they will be above fighting after their own interests. I think it unlikely that they will remain here. As to the balance of officials, if Canada is as liberal now as of old, or as liberal as Australia, they will be well provided for, whether we have Responsible Government or not. Probably they will be “ utilized,” since that is the term we are to use. I claim for the system which His Excellency has foreshadowed, that it is more suitable to the present circumstances of this Colony than any other system which can be given us. Responsible Government has acted well in large communities, but in small ones I doubt its efficiency. It is like a painted ship on a painted ocean. If it were obtained in a small Colony like this, there would be a constant game of battledore and shuttlecock going on — in to-day and out to-morrow. Fancy the Honourable Member for Victoria City presiding at the Lands and Works Department one day, and I, having paid him all the compliments I could, come over another day to have an interview with the Chief, and find that there has been a change of Ministry, there is another man in. My ideas may be wrong; if so, they can be corrected at the polls. If I were a man of property, with a large stake in the Colony, I should decidedly object to Responsible Government. I have given my opinion candidly and honestly. I may never sit at this Council Board again. I have given my advice to His Excellency, to this Board, and to my constituents, conscientiously. If I am wrong, the people will correct me. I speak from conviction. No doubt there is talent in British Columbia ; no doubt there is plenty of administrative ability ; there are many better men than myself, I am very sure, and that is one reason that I oppose Responsible Government. [Laughter.] But the main difficulty is that the best men won’t come here; the chaff is blown here, the wheat remains behind. On motion of Hon. Mr. Drake, the debate was adjourned to Monday. Monday, March 21st, 1870. Hon. Mr. RING rose to assume the debate, and said: — Mr. Chairman, I feel assured that the House will accord me leave to say a few words. There have been submitted for the consideration of this House two amendments, and in the observations of the movers, two points of argument have been adduced, — the first founded on supposed reasoning, and the second in the way of threats and military argument, grounded on the possibility of the Government refusing to insert this condition. I desire to disengage myself from this latter argument. When I hear anything tantamount to a threat from the people against the Executive, I desire to repudiate it. Hon. Members who put such a picture of warfare before us talk bunkum. I address my humble petition to His Excellency, but if his judgment is against us I say to him, stand to your point and do not give way to threats; listen to no arguments as to what may happen in the nature of threats ; stand to your points. I say to Executive Members, don’t yield to threats ; don’t be moved by them. I support the principle of Responsible Government, but I do so constitutionally. I say to Executive Members, I trust you will yield to reason and argument, but not to threats. I say we can ask for Responsible Government without the leave of the Organic Act ; but I say let us repudiate all connection with Canada until we have secured Responsible Government ; let us not wait till we are surrounded by Canadians. With regard to the railway, I say that in the life of the youngest amongst us we shall not get it; but we must make this the main Resolution : without Responsible Government let us have no Confederation. Better bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of. Let us not run the risk of having to ask Canada for Responsible Government. Make it the emphatic sine qua non that we must have Responsible Government or no Confederation. 106 Confederation Debate. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — Out of deference to the amendment offered by the Hon. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Robson), I ask the leave of the House to withdraw my motion, so that the amendment, the latter part of which I like better than my own, may stand. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I regret very much that a discussion so inapposite, so totally unnecessary, should have been forced on by the other side of the House at a time so inopportune. I am glad that the Hon. Member for Lillooet has withdrawn his motion ; it leaves the Council to deal with the amendment of the Hon. Member for New Westminster; and I deeply regret that the Hon. gentleman did not accept the invitation to give up a special field day to the discussion of Responsible Government, as suggested by myself after we had passed clause 15 of the Terms. This, I stated at the time, the House was quite competent to do. Then Members on this side of the House might have freely joined in the discussion ; perhaps some might have supported the principle. But no ! The Hon. proposer of the amendment, with the light of battle in his eye, had refused every suggestion ; and afterwards, when he began to find out his mistake, it was too late; there was nothing for it but to go on. The melee had begun; the glove is down; the visors are closed, and the lists barred. It cannot be put off. If the Hon. Member for New Westminster had been opposed to Responsible Government, he could not have devised a course more adapted, than mixing up the question with terms, for shelving Responsible Government for the session. One point which requires special notice and correction is, that nearly all speakers during the debate seem to think that the Governor alone could grant any alteration of Constitution that may be required, merely for the asking ; but this is a mistake ; he cannot. The Constitution can only be changed by the same power that created it — the Imperial Parliament and the Queen in Council. The Governor can only recommend it; it is for the Home Government to say what that change shall be. As to the able speech of the Hon. Member for New Westminster, the eloquence of which I was forced to applaud in spite of myself, it was an argument based upon fallacious premises throughout, asserting that we should only have a representative majority of one, which could only lead to a false conclusion ; and I take it that the Hon. Member is in favour of Responsible Government as a sine qua non , else why all this tall talking of blood, wading knee deep in blood? Why this encouragement of rebellion in defence of our rights, and the like? And yet I understood the Hon. Member for New Westminster to say that he does not make Responsible Government a sine qua non for Confederation. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I said nothing of the kind. I do not choose to state whether or not I would make it a sine qua non. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I have an accurate recollection, and have a note of it, and I ask the Hon. Member to state whether he will make it a sine qua non. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I understood the Hon. Member for New Westminster to say that Confederation would not be satisfactory to the Colony without Responsible Govern- ment, but he would not pledge himself to make it a sine qua non . Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I said further that I did not pledge myself that the people would not. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I then understand that the Hon. Member for New West- minster puts it not as a sine qua non. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — No, Mr. Chairman, I never said that. I will not be placed in such a position. I refuse to have such an issue forced upon us. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Either the Hon. Member puts it one way or the other ; one of two opposites must be true I can quite understand and must prefer the direct and simple issue of the Hon. Member for Victoria District, for immediate Responsible Government in any case, either with or without Confederation. I say, Sir, that the question is in no way connected with the discussion of this clause. I said that Responsible Government ought not to be considered until after the Council is reconstituted with an increased representation, as shadowed forth in His Excellency’s speech. I have said that we shall have the sole control of the matter in our own hands if we have Confederation. I say we, because I identify myself with this country. I speak on this matter as a citizen. I say that if we have Confederation we shall have an opportunity of getting Responsible Government. If we have not Confederation then we shall have increased representation, and under that we can get Responsible Government if the country as a unit goes for it. Honourable Members are complicating this question. I cannot imagine that it was the intention of the Llonourable Member for New Westminster to complicate the question. I have too much respect for him to allow myself to suppose so ; it is Confederation Debate. 107 impossible; and that he wished to force a negative is equally impossible. It is an error of judgment, in my opinion. If it bad been left to the Council separately, it would have left Honourable Members more at liberty to consider the question freely. I was, in common with other Members, carried away in admiration of the outburst of oratory of the Honourable Member. But there was an allusion — a warning. It is said that it was not a threat ; but there was talk of shouldering muskets, and of blood and bloodshed, as if that was the proper way to get civil rights. I protest against these threats, these turgid speeches which oppress the ears of those who wish to listen to argument and reason. As to the opposition of the Government Members, it arises from no dislike to the system on the part of the head of the Executive. Responsible Government interposes a barrier between the people and the Governor, which is most useful to the Governor. I say that we are not in a position to take advantage of Responsible Government. If the country thinks it necessary or desirable, what is there to prevent our getting it when we choose to ask for it? The Honourable Member for. New West- minster himself told us that the Imperial Government were always ready to step in, and yet he hints at violence and disturbance. When the Honourable Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works proposed a Resolution last session, which was seconded by myself, with respect to a change in the Constitution, asking for a Council with a majority of one of representative Members, Honourable Members said we don’t want the change, and voted it down. If we had secured this, we should have been a step further in advance than we are in constitutional progress. I say we must hesitate before any body constituted as this Council is can pass resolutions of such a nature. Any such resolutions ought to express the full and deliberate opinions of the country. As to the special merits of Responsible Government itself, it is hardly necessary to argue it here at such an inopportune time. I shall, therefore, merely say that I think it totally inapplicable at present to the circumstances of British Columbia, where popu- lation is so sparse, and lies at the circumference of a circle which contains an area of 300,000 square miles, and where representation is so diflicult that the form suggested would be the most expensive that could be adopted, and instead of preventing agitation, will be likely to increase it. Much of the population is alien, and, in any case, this Council is not the proper body to pass upon it. If, however, the country is of a different opinion, they can say so at the polls, and there is no power can prevent their getting Responsible Government. But, I would ask, what makes the system so particularly attractive to Honourable Members who advocate it? We are told that it is solely because it will be good for the Colony, but there is no attempt to prove the proposition that has been set up. Another thing strikes me as coming with a very bad grace from those who support this recommendation. It presupposes a distrust of Canada, and assumes that men of the large experience of Canadian statesmen, and so reliable as they are, are not to be trusted to yield to a general cry from the country for enlarged representative institutions. I don't think that this is the time to go into the question. I say, then, that whenever Responsible Government is wanted it can be had. I need hardly refer to the position of official Members in this matter. The terms already passed by the House, so far as this question is in any way connected with Confederation, leave the officials free to express their opinions. I must, myself, vote against this recommendation, and I press upon the Honourable Members to do the same, in order to prevent the complication of the terms with any such irrelevant question. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I must endeavour in as few words as possible to state the position of the Government Members upon the subject now before the House. I fully understand that it was imperative upon some Hon. Members to bring forward this question of responsibility at some period of the present session, having advocated it by speech and pen as the specific remedy for the ills that the Colony was labouring under. Consistency demanded that the question should be brought up by them for discussion ; it was a logical necessity. Inexorable fate, I say, impelled certain Hon. Members to advocate Responsible Government. I had, however, hoped that the Hon. Members who advocated it would have reserved it for separate consideration, instead of bringing it up as an amendment to this clause now under consideration. [Mr. Robson — “ No, not an amendment.”] Virtually it is an amendment. If this clause had prescribed that any future alteration in the constitution should have been dependent on Canada, then I could see the desirability of Hon. Members on the other side of the House taking exception to it ; but as it is I confess I am at a loss to comprehend their position. Although, as I said inexorable fate compelled Hon. Members to bring the subject 108 Confederation Debate. forward, it is a mistake to bring it up in a Council constituted as this is, especially when the Governor has so distinctly expressed his views in opposition to the inauguration of Responsible Government at the present time. It would surely have been much more to the advantage of the cause they advocate for Hon. Members to have postponed the consideration of the question for the more representative House shadowed forth in His Excellency’s speech. I say shadowed forth, for on reflection it must be plain to all Hon. Members that His Excellency was not in a position to tell what the constitution of that House will be. He does not know. He has recommended certain changes for Imperial sanction ; they may or may not be favourably con- sidered. His Excellency does, however, tell you that the representative element will be larger ; and I think, therefore, that it would have been wiser on the part of the representative members who advocate Responsible Government to have left it to the next Council instead of bringing it forward while the present Resolutions are under discussion. The subject, if not positively irrelevant, is not connected with this Resolution, which simply provides, as a matter of form, power to change the constitution, in accordance with the Organic Act, when the people desire it. In common with the Hon. Attorney-General, I am surprised that Hon. Members who cordially support Confederation should be afraid to trust the Dominion Government upon this question. I am surprised at the inconsistency of those who tell you that the people could not get Responsible Government under Confederation, and that the wishes of the people would not be allowed to prevail. I am surprised particularly at the Hon. Member for New Westminster expressing any doubt upon this subject. I, as an individual member of this community, would willingly leave the interests of the Colony to the guardianship of the Canadian Government. If I did not think that that Government would exercise whatever power it might have for the benefit of the people, instead of, as suggested by Hon. Members, for its own aggrandisement, I would have no Confederation. If under Confederation there would be no chance of Respon- sible Government, how can the Hon. Member expect to get it from a Council constituted as this is? However, as the subject has been brought forward for discussion, it behooves us to consider it upon its merits. There were two propositions before the House. The Hon. Member for Lillooet has withdrawn his, which was in reality but a vague expression of an abstract opinion in favour of Responsible Government,' — a recommendation in general terms. We have now to confine our attention to the amendment of the Hon. Member for New Westminster ; the preamble of which states that Confederation will not be satisfactory to the people without Responsible Government. The resolution itself, although embodying the same principle as the one which has been withdrawn, contemplates a practical step towards obtaining the object recommended, by addressing the Governor. The Hon. Member for New Westminster was careful to reserve his own opinion, but he was very positive that Confederation without Respon- sible Government would not be acceptable to the people. Coming now to the subject and matter of the speeches of the two Hon. Members, I find that the arguments of the Hon. Member for Lillooet are simply invectives ; his entire logic is abuse of the Government and the persons composing it. I have always understood that assertion is not fact, and that invective is not argument. It may be that my inability to appreciate the force of his remarks arises from my not possessing the qualification which he told us was essential to a proper understanding of the people and the people’s affairs. It may be that I have not “ eaten and drunk and slept with the people,” and cannot, therefore, rightly estimate the strength of demonstration which general and indiscriminate abuse of Government officials may convey to some minds. As to the Hon. Member’s earnestness of belief in his case, his conscientiousness in the discharge of his duty to his constituents and to the Colony, had we ever any doubt of it, his positive and repeated assurances of the honesty of his intentions in this matter, of his unfaltering deter- mination to do his duty to those he represents, must have forced conviction upon us. But, while giving him full credit for singleness of purpose, I must take leave to remark on his singular mode of recommending the subject to the favourable consideration of this Council, since his argument in its favour is to heap general accusation and vituperation on the Official Members of this Council, whom he invites to join with him by voting in favour of his views. — to confirm his view of their utter baseness and worthlessness. I shall not place myself in opposi- tion to such a line of argument. But, Sir, the argument of the Hon. Member for New West- minster is of a very different character. I congratulate him, and I congratulate the House, on the manner in which the matter was treated by him, and especially as regards the officials. I acknowledge the courteous manner in which he touched on these points in his arguments which affected the members at this end of the table. It is inseparable from the discussion of this Confederation Debate. 109 question in this House that it must to some extent partake of a personal character; it must almost mean a vote of want of confidence in Government officials. The smallness of the com- munity reduces it almost to a question amongst individuals, and as the Government Members have been placed, unnecessarily and inexpediently, as I think, to some extent upon their defence, I must speak plainly on some points, but in doing so T must deprecate any idea of giving offence. I say, then, that Responsible Government is not desirable, and is not applicable to this Colony at present ; is practically unworkable. And here I would deprecate the impression which is being so studiously instilled into the people of this Colony concerning what has been said of the unfitness of the Colony for Responsible Government. His Excellency the Governor has never said, nor has any member of the Government ever said, that the people are unfit, individually, to govern themselves. I say that, man for man, this community will compare favourably with any people on this coast. [“ Hear, hear,” from the Attorney-General.] Nor is it even the smallness of the population that I consider to be the great objection, although I admit that this is a drawback ; but it is the scattered character of that population. It would be practically impossible to organize electoral districts so that they should properly represent the interests of the separate parts, and of the whole Colony. As Victoria is the centre of wealth, and intelligence also, if you will, under present circumstances the Government would be centralized in the hands of Victorians, who would thus rule the Colony, and this would be objectionable [‘‘Hear, hear,” from Mr. Holbrook] ; and I say also that there would be a great difficulty in getting proper representatives to represent the respective districts. I do not agree with the Hon. Member who has stated that only the chaff of the people is blown into this House; for I say, Sir, that this Council, constituted as it is, has proved that men fit to represent the people do come here, Responsible Government will come as a matter of course when the community is fit for it; but that form of government is not fitted for communities in their infancy. It has never been so considered. Look abroad into the world and you will find large populations without Responsible Government. There is no necessity to look far off to see whether the Anglo-Saxon race must necessarily have Responsible Government. Look across the Straits, where there is a population of, I suppose, 30,000 people, and there they have neither Responsible Government nor representa- tive institutions. Look at Oregon, also with no representation until the population exceeded 45,000. Look at the Red River Settlement, also with a population larger than ours ; they do not apply for Responsible Government. It does not follow, according to the rule of Anglo-Saxon minds, that this form of government must prevail. I do not think the sort of responsibility which is advocated would be suitable to this Colony at present, or would promote its true interests. If I did think it desirable I should be found amongst its most cordial advocates, as this is a matter open for discussion without Government direction. But I think, Sir, that our present form of Government is practically a more real responsibility to the people than that proposed by the Hon. Member for New Westminster ; this form which the Hon. Member for Lillooet finds it so easy to animadvert upon. For we are in reality, if not directly, responsible to the people. We, as servants of the Crown, are directly and immediately responsible to the Governor, and the Governor is responsible to the Queen, who is the guardian of the people's rights. This is no mere idea, for the fact of responsibility has been, over and over again, proved. If you have any good grounds of complaint you know where to lay them and get redress. This responsibility which we owe is more real, less fluctuating, less open to doubtful influences, and under it the rights of the whole country are secured and protected, and not those of the majority, to the prejudice of the minority, as under the so-called Responsible Government, which really means Party Government, advocated so warmly by the Hon. Member for New Westminster. Why, Sir, the Hon. Member has admitted to you that under that system the Government of the day might come down to pass measures by unfair means. Hon. Mr, ROBSON — No, I made use of no such words; what were my words? Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER— The Hon. Member said, and I took down his words, “ that under Responsible Government the Government might come down to the House and carry measures by means not excessively fair.” I say that this cannot occur under the present system ; that no corruption can be charged against this Government. I think the House is capable of being remodelled. I would rather see a larger element of representative govern- ment in this Council, with such a majority that the Government would have no opportunity of passing a measure objectionable to the people, as understood by their representatives ; such a majority as I advocated in a resolution submitted to this Council. But the Hon. Members 110 Confederation Debate. for New Westminster, for Victoria District, and for Lillooet, tell you that the people desire Responsible Government ; that they must have it, and will have it. I say, Sir, that if they do say so, which I very much doubt, it is because the population have been educated up to it by those who have agitated the subject through the press and through speeches. Some no doubt press for it from conviction, and some with a view to serving their own ends ; but I believe, Sir, that what the people really want is such an administration of the Government as will tend to bring back prosperity to the Colony. You are told that the present officials have no sympathy with the people ; that they are not of the people ; that they move in a different sphere, and constitute a class by themselves. Is this true — or is it not rather the fact that persons who have ends to serve have put us in a class by ourselves? The Hon. Member says that the hands of the benefactors of the pebple must be callous with labour. Who, I ask, are those throughout the world who have laboured most for the people by speech and pen? I say that the great statesmen who have done most to advance the truest interests of the people, have not sprung from the ranks of those whom the Hon. Member classes as the people. The Hon. Member for New Westminster says that the present Government Officials are well enough, able and honest, but that they cannot enjoy the confidence of the people because they are not tlieir officials ; they are not elected by them. And, be as able as we might, and as honest, and work as we might, and do what we might for the people’s good, we could not gain their con- fidence because we are not directly responsible to them. And the Hon. Member sympathized with us for the position. Now, Sir, if it be true, as he says, that the Government have not the confidence of the community when, he says, they deserve it, whose is the fault? I say, Sir, it is the fault of those who, by voice and pen, have for years sedulously prejudiced the public mind of this community against that Government, not by pointing out faults to be remedied, but by general and indiscriminate fault finding, descending to personal abuse, and even to the verge of scurrility. We have striven to do our duty. Hon. Members do not advance argu- ments, but content themselves with saying that we are unpopular. I tell you why: If false impressions have gone abroad on this point let the responsibility of those impressions rest where it ought; for I say that it has been the business of certain persons to prejudice the public mind against Government officials. Let them settle the question of motives with their own consciences and with the people. If the officials in this House occupied the positions which would be held by officials under party government, I could understand the persistent course of the opposition offered by some members present; but when I see the changed position, that there is no Responsible Government, and that our mouths are closed and our pens cannot be used in self-defence, I feel that we have been struck in a cowardly manner, and let the public defend the motives of those who have attacked us. I invite all in this House, or out of it, to aid us to carry on the Government, and to act in a reasonable way in promoting the general interests of the Colony. Whether we are to have Responsible Government or not I don't know. I feel that it will come in good time, when the circumstances of the Colony are so changed as to admit of its adoption — I think sooner with Confederation than without it. But whether we have it or not, I ask Hon. Members to assist us instead of endeavouring to complicate matters and retard the progress of the Colony. I ask them to give us some credit for good intentions. Now, Sir, one remark in conclusion : the Hon. Member for New Westminster, in his powerful oration, has not only allured us with the prospects of popularity under Responsible Govern- ment, but he has, I will not say threatened, warned us of the result of our opposing him in this matter. He tells us that unless Responsible Government be conceded the cause of Confed- eration will be ruined ; that the people would not have Confederation without Responsible Government. This in fact is embodied in the preamble of his Resolution. Sir, I have cordially supported Confederation because I honestly believe that it will be for the benefit of the local interests of this community as well as for the security and consolidation of Imperial interests ; but I believe that this community is not ready for Responsible Government. I will not, there- fore, do what I consider wrong that good may come ; I will not vote for Responsible Govern- ment for the sake of gaining Confederation. I, for one, say, if the people won’t have Confedera- tion without Responsible Government ; if they regard Responsible .Government as the main object of Confederation ; if they do not appreciate the real advantages of Confederation, let Confederation wait a while. The Governor has sent down Resolutions which he thinks can be carried out, and we hold that, whether under Confederation or not, this matter of Responsible Government will ultimately have to be settled by the vote of the people. When the proper Confederation Debate. Ill time comes we shall, T say, as a matter of course, have Responsible Government; and that time will arrive sooner under Confederation than without it. I trust the Dominion Govern; ment ; I do not think they will go against the will of the people. I believe that in this, as in other matters, if they exercise influence at all, it will he for the good of the country* A Government of liberal institutions cannot be expected to oppose the wishes of the people in proper and reasonable matters. Responsible Government ought not to be a condition of Con- federation ; and I say that in these Resolutions it is very properly left to be settled in a new and more fully representative Council, which the Governor has told us he is going to obtain Imperial sanction to establish. But if Confederation is to depend on this question of Responsible Government, then I say let it be the test also of the reality of the supporters of Confederation. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I expect the privilege of a general reply, but I desire to explain, now, that the Hon. Chief Commissioner has made an unfair use of what I said about “ horny hands and patched garments.” I disclaim having used it in that connection attributed to me ; his remarks are unfair. Hon. Mr. WALKEM — I think on an important question of this kind every member should give a reason for his vote. I have given the matter great consideration, and had intended entering somewhat fully into the discussion, but the Hon. Chief Commissioner has anticipated me. I have been utterly astonished as I listened to what fell from him. I entirely coincide with him in his argument and in his views. Indeed, I can hardly help thinking that either he has copied my notes or I his. I must congratulate myself on coming to this conclusion. On the same ground I congratulate the House on the good temper, good taste, intelligence, and ability with which this question has been launched for discussion. The main speech — for the Hon. Member for Victoria District did not deign to express his views — has been that of the Hon. Member for New Westminster. As I listened to that speech, Sir, one of the best ever uttered in this House, I almost felt that for five long years I had been wrong, — he almost made a convert of me; but upon looking a little more closely into it I find that it is based upon false premises ; his arguments are fallacious, and his conclusions wrong. The Hon. Member says that Responsible Government is a principle which may be applied either to the Great Eastern, or to a dairy churn, or to a lady’s watch ; that it is a principle capable of being carried out by three or three hundred. This is utterly incorrect ; it is not a principle, but a form, one element of which is responsibility to the people. It is a form adopted by the people, but it does not follow, as a matter of induction, that it can be used or carried out in every place or by every community. In 1837 the rebellion in Canada, for the purpose of acquiring Responsible Government, took place. The rebellion was raised and the question agitated simply for changing the form of Government. What was the population? It was in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000 in 1837, and of 2,500,000 in 1861. Look at the difference of the population of this Colony ; after deducting the aliens and females, there is scarcely a voting population through the whole Oolony of 3,000. Have the whole country mapped out and show me how much further the Governor can go in usefully extending the representation. We have nine members, and out of these nine, under Responsible Government, we should have to elect a Colonial Secretary, an Attorney-General, a Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, and probably two other Cabinet Ministers ; altogether five in office, and four struggling for power. Make the whole number eighteen and you then have a constant struggle for power ; a struggle such as we have not had in this Colony before, and such as I hope we shall not see. There are virtually two ends of the Colony which represent all the wealth and property of the community — Victoria and Cariboo. Cariboo would be contending for the repeal of road tolls,' and Victoria would be contending that they ought to be paid. It may be said that these general questions of taxation will be left to the Dominion Government, but there are many other subjects which will create differences between the two ends of the Colony. The Hon. Member for New Westminster says if we go in without Responsible Government we shall go in with -agitation. Does any one believe that if we had Responsible Government to-morrow, politicians will have no subject on which to agitate. Political agitation will never cease. Let us go further. As the Honourable Chief Commissioner says, we have the United States advo- cating Responsible Government, and that form of it which is said to be the best in theory, a form in reality democratic; but the people are not educated to the extent of the principle itself. Americans are averse not only to granting small but large territories the freedom which we now ask. They say : “ You shall be a Territory until you are properly educated.” 112 Confederation Debate. For instance, there is Washington Territory, with a population of 27,000, sends a Delegate to Congress, who has no vote. Dakota, another Territory, has been refused admission as a State until it has a population larger than it now possesses. I am just reminded about Alaska, which is not even a Territory yet. General Thomas reported 'against giving it any other than a military form of Government. Flow can we, then, expect Responsible Government with our population? I know that there are Honourable Members wavering; their interests tell them to vote one way, their conscience points to another. F say, vote according to your conscience. I say that a village can never have Responsible Government. I maintain that it would prove a curse, through the agitation that would follow, instead of a blessing. I coincide with the Honourable Member for New Westminster as to what he says as to callous hands. I believe there are men with tattered garments in the upper country quite capable of giving a sensible vote upon all questions likely to come before a Council in this Colony ; but we find that, they have too much to do ; they have no time for politics ; they have to earn their own bread. I believe that the Honourable Member for Cariboo has uttered the true sentiments of the great majority of the district. I do not believe that Cariboo is favourable to Responsible Govern- ment. Those gentlemen with the patched garments and callous hands have the same oppor- tunity that the Member for New Westminster has had of coming into the House. He has told us with pride of his hard work as a pioneer on the Fraser River ; and to-day we hear him advocating, with most eloquent language, his views upon this great question. His voice has had much to do with shaping the councils of this House, and, I ask, are these doors shut to any man in the Colony of equal talent with the Honourable gentleman, who can be found willing to devote their time to the service of their country? I do not feel in the servile position of being obliged to vote one way or the other. I am as free to vote as the Honourable Member himself. I shall give my vote to the best of my ability. I believe that no compul- sion has been brought to bear upon any Member of this House, official or otherwise. The latter part of the speech of the Honourable gentleman (Mr. Robson) is hardly worthy of the former. It contains language which I am very sorry he has used ; language which makes me believe that it is not from conviction, but that it is intended to go forth to the world to stir up the people; excellent stump oratory, if, without intending the slightest disrespect, I may use the term. I believe it is not the wish of the property owners of Victoria to have Respon- sible Government. F)o you suppose, Sir, that property owners are going, willingly, to entrust their interests to persons of whom they know nothing? I do not dread professional politicians; I believe they are as useful as any other professional men in their way ; but I say, as a fact, there are no politicians here with the exception of those who have devoted their time to politics. Why, I ask, is there so great an antipathy to leaving this question for the people to decide at the polls? “Give us,” says the other side, “an opportunity of educating ourselves, so that our mistakes, when made, may be remedied.” I say that there is no better education than this Council, in which Hon. Members have education before they come to Responsible Government ; for under the scheme foreshadowed by the Governor, the position will be very little inferior to Responsible Government. Depend upon it, if the Canadian Government think we can manage Responsible Government they will give it to us — they will be glad to get rid of the question. I say, however, this question is being agitated at an inopportune time. I, for one, would not consent to trust my interests to any such change. I do not believe in the present form of Government, but if the form foreshadowed by the Governor be carried out, it will give the people a system very little inferior, as I have said, to Responsible Government, and infinitely more workable. I trust that Hon. Members will give due weight to the remarks of other speakers who have preceded me upon the question, and will well consider their votes. Hon. Mr. F)RAKE — Mr. Chairman, I have a strong objection to this clause being inserted ; it never ought to have been in the terms. It presumes -that this Colony is willing to go into Confederation with the form of Government that we have at present. It seems to have been put in as a sop to Canada ; it ought to have been left out. I cannot see why it is inserted, or what advantage it can possibly be to us. If we go into Confederation bound hand and foot with the same form of Government as now, we shall have no power to change the form. We shall then have Canada as a Queen Regnant. We shall then have an Executive who will, if so directed, vote against Responsible Government. This Colony would be a preserve for Canadian statesmen and Canadian patronage; we shall be no more advanced then than now. Without going into argument I may be pardoned, I trust, if I quote three propositions of John Confederation Debate. 113 Stuart Mill on Responsible Government : First, “ Do the people require it ; or are they unwilling to accept it?” We are told that this has not been made a question; I deny this statement. It has been made a question, more or less, in Victoria at every election. Every election depends more or less on this point. Second, “ Are the people willing to take the burdens which are imposed on them by such a form?” I say that we have the answer to this proposition in the fact of there being people willing to come here where they are practically useless. Do not persons come forward to represent the people? A very large majority of the people take part in every election. Third, “ Are the people willing and able to do that which will enable the Government to perform its functions properly ? ” This, I contend, is the condition of the Colony. The main argument of the Chief Commissioner in his very able speech, a broad argu- ment and very well put, is that the population is scattered. I say this argument cannot be used with effect. We are told that the Government would fall into the hands of Victoria as the centre of population and wealth ; no great harm if it did. Victoria is dependent upon all parts of the Colony, and they on her ; their interests are identical. Another objection that has been raised is, that we cannot get men of proper intelligence and qualifications for positions of honour and trust. Looking round this Council Board we see men who have come out to this Colony to make their own fortunes and homes. Out of them the present members of the Government have been chosen, and out of our present population there can be found an equal number of men who can properly fulfil the duties of the Government. I cannot see that it is impossible to find proper men. If we find men willing to sit in this -Council now, we shall find plenty ready and anxious to share in the burdens of Responsible Government. The suffi- ciency or insufficiency of population is not an element in this question. The United States has been pointed out to us as an example. I say there is no Responsible Government in the United States ; it is an absolute despotic democracy, absolutely irresponsible to the people, except once in four years. There is no such thing as responsibility in the form of government of the United States. The only means of getting rid of a minister is by impeachment. The Hon. Member for Cariboo, in his rambling speech, gives us no new argument against Responsible Government. He certainly reiterated much that was forcibly put forward by the Hon. Chief Commissioner. I can well believe that the wheat was left at Cariboo, and the chaff came here. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — Sir, 1 have listened to the speeches of the Hon. Chief Commis- sioner of Lands and Works and to the Hon. Government nominee, and I find them difficult to answer, because there is so little in them. The only way would be to have them printed and read them. They carry their answers with them. One Hon. Member says that it rests on numbers. I say that intelligence is the only qualification for Responsible Government; numbers have nothing to do with it. If I err I am proud of erring with some of the greatest men that England ever produced. The Hon. Chief Commissioner has admitted that the popu- lation, taken man for man, is equal to that of any country. Then, I say, we have the proper qualification. Let us have practical, and not theoretical, means of governing. What is really the case? Under the present form of Government the people have to pay for the privilege and benefit of a few gentlemen sitting round this board. Take away this form of government and make it more liberal, and what is the danger? All the civil wars and troubles have not arisen from the uneducated, but from the ambition of the so-called educated classes. The people have been the conservatives who came forward to keep the country going. Take away the so-called intelligent and educated classes and it will be no great loss ; the labouring classes can always supply men to fill their places. But take away the working classes and you kill the world ; the educated classes cannot fill their places. In my opinion, Sir, the people want practical reality. They have endured too long the law’s delay and the insolence of those in office. Why should we come here, year after year, to ask for a change in the form of government? I think that Responsible Government should be a sine qua non of Confederation. I shall move an amend- ment to that effect. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — Great heavens ! what terrible things are said and done in the name of the people. To hear Hon. Members talk one would think that they were the people. But the people are quiet while Hon. Members are very loud. I intend to support the Govern- ment. I do not mean to say much for or against. I take the position that the people can have Responsible Government when they want it ; and their representatives ought to be satisfied to take it when the people really and seriously ask for it. Responsible Government has been one of the watchwords of a certain set of politicians who wanted to bring on Confederation. 8 114 Confederation Debate. Government of, from, for, and by the people, without regard to the material interests of the Colony. This means government by politicians. These gentlemen will sacrifice every benefit to the Colony for Responsible Government. Confederation to me means terms ; to them it means pickings, office, place, and power. This will be represented. I am well aware, as being the result of being in the Executive Council. It is said that there is a great difference between the atmosphere of the two Councils. I acknowledge it. There, with closed doors, people speak the truth, without any ad captandum arguments addressed to the galleries. There people can state what their opinions really are. Here popularity has to be sought. We are told that the people will fight for Responsible Government. That is mere nothing — words only. The Hon. Member for New Westminster in his able speech erected a very handsome structure, but, like most fancy structures, it will be a very expensive one. *He wants a Government like Ontario ; that is a Government of one House, with eighty members. For a Government of that kind not less than forty or fifty would be absolutely necessary. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I never said like that of Ontario, but that we w’anted the principle of Responsible Government as existing in Ontario. Hon. Mr. HELMCKEN — Then why not bring in a scheme embodying it? The true prin- ciples of Responsible Government can only exist satisfactorily with forty or fifty members in the House. It would cost very little short of $20,000 per annum. That, out of the very small amount we are to get from Canada, would reduce the amount likely to be available for public works to a fraction. You must have a large number to work Responsible Government, or, more properly speaking, party government. If we are to have it, I would not have the heads of departments responsible to the people; at least not the working heads. If any head of a department is to be responsible to the people, let it be the political head ; but I would make the working heads permanent. I have found, from my experience of the old Vancouver House of Assembly, that policy frequently changes and turns round. The same thing would happen under Responsible Government. If I wished to oppose Confederation, I believe that I could not do a better thing towards effecting my object than to vote for Responsible Government; but I want to see the more material wants advanced by Confederation. I know that material interests were not the pivot, but that is was place, patronage, and office that was wanted. With regard to the present system of Government, it is very easy to say that it is bad, but I have listened to all the speeches and have not heard one word of practical fault-finding with the present Government — merely the assumption that the people desire change. This desire for change they have been educated to. I acknowledge many faults in the past, but we have now a new Executive, and we are promised a change in the form of Government; but this is apart from Confederation altogether. It appears to me that the first thing we have to arrange is the money question ; to get our material interests first settled ; to make sure that this Colony should be pecuniarily better off; to make the question of Confederation now turn upon material interest, and not allow our material interests to be jeopardized by a cry for Respon- sible Government; not to allow Responsible Government to be the sauce to make the public swallow bad and unprofitable terms. All Members have acknowledged that “ money ” is the basis of all Governments; let us get that money. I would not have the public vote for Responsible Government and forget or put in the background the money. Place the question upon material terms and the Colony will demand profitable terms ; but mix it up with Respon- sible Government and you get a divided opinion upon it, and those who think Responsible Government everything will vote for that to the exclusion of any terms, or, at all events, with unprofitable terms. There are, doubtless, many who hope to live upon Responsible Gov- ernment; but, Sir, Responsible Government is not food and raiment. The people can live without Responsible Government, but they cannot live upon it. Give them food and raiment first ; the rest will follow in natural succession. These few words will give you my reasons for consenting to the arrangement proposed in the conditions. More than this, I am not pledged to Responsible Government, but I am pledged to representative institutions. The latter have been granted; my mission thus far is fulfilled. I have always asserted that we must take our steps to Responsible Government gradually. Having representative institutions, we can go on to the other. No one ever stated that the people were unfit to govern themselves; all acknowledge that they have talent enough. But this I do assert, that thus far the people have shown an unwillingness to govern themselves — have taken but little interest in the matter. It is not that they are unfit, but unwilling. They prefer looking after their own business ; it pays them Confederation Debate. 115 better. I need not refer to the difficulty of getting members ; and doubtless some of us sit here from that cause; and it is no doubt true, as has been said, that better could have been found ouside. If you have Responsible Government it will fall into the hands of those who wish to make a living by it. No one has said that it would be economical — it would not be so. It would require at least thirty members to carry on party Government for six weeks at least every year, or $150 per diem for thirty-six days, which would amount to $5,400 ; and then the mileage would come to as much more — say, altogether, $10,000. Add to these the salaries of the political heads, say five at $2,000 per annum, and then you have the nice little sum of $20,000 a year. Then, I suppose, each Minister would require a pension when he went out. The real Executive officers would remain then as now, and would have to be paid nearly as much as at present. The truth is, there would be a great difficulty in getting members, and without a large body of members it could not be carried on. You would find that the best men would avoid politics, and soon there would be very great corruption. There is a great deal of talk about voting away the people’s money, but it must be borne in mind that a part of that money, under Confederation, will come from Canada, and she will have a right to see it properly expended. There is also a great deal of talk about Hon. Official Members voting their own salaries, but would not the same thing be done under Responsible Government? Have not Hon. Representative Members voted themselves salaries this present session? Hon. Members say that if Responsible Government is not granted we will agitate. I thought that everybody was so much in favour of it that the people would rise if it were not included in the terms; that there would be employment for every gunsmith in Victoria ; and yet we are told “ we will agitate.” Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I never said that; I said that the people would agitate. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — It is much the same thing ; the agitators will “ beat the bush ” once more, and they will perhaps be driving the birds for other people once again. If the people really desire Responsible Government, why is there any necessity for all this agitation? I admit that many of the people of Victoria desire it, and think that it can be carried out. Ask the scattered districts in the country, and they will tell you that they do not know or care about it. Political opinion does not run high in the Colony. I intend to support the Government upon this clause, but I leave myself perfectly free to vote for Responsible Government if I think proper. I want to secure the material interests of the Colony. Let the people say whether those material interests will be benefited by Confederation, but not mix up the question of Responsible Government with it. I am perfectly willing to abide by the decision of the people on Responsible Government, and on Confederation on Terms, separately. My sole desire is to see this country materially benefited. If the people want responsibility I will not say nay, but we must have good terms. At the polls Responsible Government might carry Confederation with very indifferent terms. I am perfectly certain that the Government have acted wisely in not allowing the terms to be clogged with Responsible Government. I say, don’t let Responsible Government take the place of material benefits. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — Sir, I rise to take exception to what the honourable and learned Member for Victoria City said about being bound hand and foot to Canada. In my remarks he can find no efforts to catch votes, and no clap-trap addressed to the galleries, but I advocate what may be unpopular from conviction. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — Sir, I agree with the Hon. Chief Commissioner that it is a pity that this question has been brought up now, for I had made up my mind to vote for Responsible Government in its entirety; but the Hon. Member for New Westminster put the question to the Hon. Attorney-General, who said it must go on. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I said that as the Hon. Member for New Westminster and others insisted upon opening the discussion, it must go on. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I felt regret that it should be brought up now, but when I asked if we could put it off, the Hon. Attorney-General said it was too late. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL— I offered the Hon. Members for New Westminster and Lillooet every opportunity for discussing the important question upon a day to be set apart for the purpose. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — What I did was in consequence of what the Hon. Attorney- General said at the commencement of the debate. He invited recommendations, otherwise I should not have put my notice on the board. 116 Confederation Debate. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — It was fully impressed on my mind that this question should not be mixed up with the terms. I am astonished at the charge against Representative Members of trying to force this question upon the House at an inopportune time. I will leave it to the Government to say whether it shall be left for another day or go on. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I say, again, now the debate has begun, now the gauntlet is down, the debate must go on. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — Sir, this course is most unfair on the part of the Government Members. Let the House decide whether it will go on with this question now or postpone it. It seems to me that the Hon. Attorney-General is resorting to a parliamentary manoeuvre in forcing this matter on. It is a matter that Representative Members only ought to vote on. We shall have a large majoriy of Representative Members on this question, and that is all we want. I say that the Attorney-General did not fairly answer my question as to whether, by passing this resolution, we should shut the door to further discussion of the question during the present session. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I should now object to the resolution being withdrawn. As the question has been discussed, let us take a decision upon it ; it would be unwise to postpone the question. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — I think, Sir, the matter cannot now be postponed; let us fight it out and have done with it. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I say, Sir, that this debate may be postponed, and if the Government vote is given against the postponement we shall know the reason. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — The Hon. Chief Commissioner said that he should take an adverse vote on this resolution as a vote of want of confidence. I don’t want that. Won’t Hon. Govern- ment Members help us? Hon. Dr. CARRALL — The opposition say that the Government ought not to have put such a resolution on the terms. Let us take that issue. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — It was not my desire to hamper the Government; I desired to give a hearty support to the Government, and, at the same time, to do my duty to my constituents. I have never felt the weight of responsibility as I feel it to-day. I feel that I am about casting a vote which will affect, for weal or woe, the destiny of this fine Province. I am convinced that if a majority of the elected Members of this Council vote “ aye ” to-day on this question, Respon- sible Government will be inaugurated conjointly with Confederation. It is beyond a question that the intelligent portion of the community are in favour of Responsible Government, but there is a grave question in regard to its adaptation to the Colony. The words coming from His Excellency are worthy of careful consideration ; they contain strong reasons against the introduction of Responsible Government. Public opinion is not settled on the Island. The Hon. senior Member for Victoria City has shown in his remarks that there is a great want of settled principle in the Colony. The principal men of Victoria are averse to taking upon themselves the duties and labour of legislating for the country. Men of standing and wealth stand aloof. The merchants, manufacturers, and professional men take no interest in the matter of legislation. There is a great difficulty in getting good representative men. There are, I admit, many good reasons which might be urged against the measure, and I have no doubt that dissatisfaction, to some extent, may ensue. I agree with the Commissioner of Lands and Works, In his remarks about the press influencing the public unfavourably to the Govern- ment ; but the blame is not in the press, but in that system of Government which keeps the rulers silent. The members of the Government ought to be in a position to defend themselves, both by pen and speech. I have glanced at a few reasons against the admission of Responsible Government, but I will now look at the other side. Look at the fact of all the larger subjects, under Union, being dealt with by the Federal power. This fact, of itself, is as strong an argument as we need. What Hon. Member can go to his constituents and tell them that he thinks the local business of this Colony could be managed better at Ottawa than it can be by ourselves? The Official Members of this Government will, no doubt, avail themselves of the retiring pension, and appointees from Ottawa will take their places. Will those latter officials have to be pensioned off by this Colony when we adopt Responsible Government? This is a strong objection to entering the Union under a system like the present. This Colony may be asked to pension another set of officials. Will the people be satisfied with this sort of Government if we are to have appointees from Ottawa? There are a class of men who oppose Confederation Debate. 117 Confederation on this ground. They would prefer remaining as they are, with the officials nominated from Downing Street, rather than from Ottawa. It is often asserted that this Colony is not ready. How long are we to wait? Canada was told the same story when she had a population of 600,000. All the other Provinces were told the same thing. Must we wait for such an increase, or must we fight as did Canada? Throw us on our own resources as a Colony, and we will soon learn valuable lessons in the science of Government. There were gentlemen of good families and of good education who came here in early days, who had never suffered privations of any sort before they came here; sent out to make fortunes, or, at all events, homes for themselves ; their roughing it was rough indeed. Bad news had come from the mines ; the avenues of trade were closed ; there were no agricultural pursuits for them to turn to ; the consequence was they had to lie round hotels ; after failing to get Government employment, — for which, as a matter of course, they applied, — some kept bars whilst waiting for remittances. The reason was that they never had been taught self-reliance. We shall be in the same position if we are constantly to have rulers from England, or Canada ; but throw us on our resources and we shall succeed. Self-reliance is the best means of education in politics as in anything else. If our rulers are sent us from England or Ottawa we will always lack self-reliance. Self-reliance is written on every line of the British North America Act. Rely upon yourselves, is the cry of the people of England. It is better to grapple with the difficulties now when the issues are small and comparatively unimportant; and should we make blunders they will not be so serious when our interests are small ; and for what errors we do commit, the consequences will fall upon ourselves. We will, no doubt, blunder at first, and there may be chaff blown here. If Responsible Government will bring the scum to the top, dross will go to the bottom. The scum will be ladled off — the chaff will be blown away by the breath of public opinion. The Governor’s promise of a majority will not satisfy the people, and we should, therefore, urge upon His Excellency to give us Responsible Government. I am not in favour, however, of making that condition a sine qua non of Confederation. I would accept Confederation with good terms, even without Responsible Government. There may be a few arguments against it, but there are many in its favour. Under no circumstances would I like Confederation and Responsible Government to go to the polls together. I hope the people will sever the two. Let us have Confederation and we shall get Responsible Government. Hon. Mr. WOOD — In rising to address myself to the motion now before this Committee, I do so with a double object: I feel myself challenged to uphold my opinion on the subject of Responsible Government, as applied to this Colony, and I am desirous to add a few words on the bearing of the subject, in the matter of Confederation, now before the Council. First, with respect to the subject of Responsible Government. As to this, Sir, my views have been for a long time settled, and I shall endeavour to express them as clearly as I can. The result of them is expressed in a few words. I am in favour of the extension of representative institu- tions little by little, to the utmost verge of safety; but I am opposed, in this community at least, to the establishment of what is called Responsible Government. These are my views shortly. I believe them to be the settled convictions of most moderate and experienced men not bound to flatter popular constituencies. And I believe I am doing a service to society in upholding such moderate views against the popular error and the popular bias in favour of the rash application of Responsible Government in such communities. I will start, Sir, at once from an historical point of view. The Hon. Member for New Westminster has, as I under- stand him, asserted that Responsible Government is the immemorial birthright of Englishmen, and that the principle of Cabinet Ministers going in and out with votes of a majority of the House of Commons is a principle of ancient date. My understanding of the history of my country leads to a different conclusion ; and however much it may be clear and obvious that representative institutions are our natural and inalienable birthright; however much it may be established that the. power of self-taxation resides and has always resided in the represent- atives of the country, in the Commons of England, carrying with it the overwhelming power of the purse — it is, I believe, clearly admitted that the principle of Responsible Government, as now understood, has existed for little more than 100 years, — say from the accession of George III. and the termination of Lord Bute’s administration, — so that I admit the Hon. gentleman’s proposition only so far as this. Representative institutions are the birthright of the British nations — representative institutions and the privilege of taxing ourselves. Now, Sir, I believe the whole scope of representative institutions to be greatly misrepresented. It 118 Confederation Debate. is the fashion for Honourable Members to say that the Government of this or any other com- munity are bound to govern according to the well understood wishes of the people; that the vox populi is the vox dei; that Ministries and Governments are responsible to the people. But the true principle, as we all very well know, is that Governments and Ministries are responsible, not to the people as a populace, but to the representatives of the people, properly and reasonably chosen. Governments and Ministries are responsible, not to numerical majorities, but to the country. Now, Sir, representative institutions are liable to this obvious and well-known danger. I will quote the words of a well-known political writer, Herbert Spencer : “ When- ever the profit accruing to the representative individually, from the passage of a mischievous measure, largely exceeds his loss as a unit in the community from the operation of the injurious law, his interest becomes antagonistic to that of his constituents, and sooner or later will sway his vote.” How true and how obvious this is. I might go further, when the private and personal, the direct and immediate, interest of the representative or of the constituents, whose advocates and delegates they are, is opposed to any matter of legislative action, the direct and material interest will, of a certainty, prevail over the distant and more remote welfare of the community, in all but very rare instances. This is the danger that threatens all representative institutions, and the only safeguard against it is the qualification — the pecuniary and material qualification of the representative, the pecuniary and material qualification of the elector ; and, accordingly, we see representative institutions flourishing and successful only when this safeguard practically exists. Let us turn to the example of England. In England representative institutions and Responsible Government work smoothly — and why? Because of the notoriously aristocratic and plutocratic character of the Legislature of Great Britain. Political life is a sealed book to any but the wealthy classes. Every member of Parliament is a man of property ; no other can afford the luxury of legislative life ; and society is secure in the hands of representatives whose property would suffer from the results of vicious or reckless legislation. I say nothing of the question of peace and war, probably the most momentous and disastrous subject of vicious and reckless legislation, a question which will not arise in the Colony. The cream of all legislation is taxation, and my solid conviction is that representative institutions and Responsible Government will fail whenever the working majority is in the hands of an unsubstantial class of representatives or of electors. I have thus, Sir, treated of representative institutions and Responsible Government somewhat in the abstract. I will now refer more particularly to its application to this Colony, and this apart from any question of Confederation ; and I will repeat that I am in favour of the exten- sion to the utmost possible limits of the representative elements of this Council, but adverse to Responsible Government. With respect to the constitution of the Legislative Council of British Columbia, it might, I think, hardly be necessary, in the present condition of the Colony, to advocate a second chamber — a Council as distinct from an Assembly. However advisable this may be in an advanced condition of the Colony, advanced in numbers and wealth, few, if any, would advocate such an institution as a second chamber. The elements for forming such a chamber are sadly wanting in the present state of affairs, and the matter may be dismissed without further comment — without discussing the advisability in a general way of such an institution at all, or the constitutional elements of such a body. But with regard to the Legislature on the supposition of its consisting of one single House, it will be necessary to speak at somewhat greater length. Of what elements ought such a legislative body to consist? At present it consists of official members, heads of departments; official members not heads of departments, but representing, for the most part, different magisterial districts ; a few nominated members — nominated, I think it is reasonable to presume, from an impression of their being tolerably intelligent and moderate; and a few representative mem- bers. It is asked whether the constitution of this Council should be altered so as to establish direct Responsible Government, or what may be looked upon almost as its equivalent, a large working majority of responsible members. I leave out of the question at present all reference to any modification of the constitution of the Council in the event of Confederation, and I consider the matter at present only in reference to the Council and the Colony in their actual condition. At present it is obvious, and must be felt by all of us, by official members no less than by independent members, that our position as a Crown Colony is what is commonly called a false position. We are individually as well fitted for self-government as our brothers or our cousins in the Old Country or in Canada. I will go further : I will say that the community, taken individually, in this Colony is better qualified to demand and have repre- Confederation Derate. 119 sentative institutions. I say taken individually — and I mean it in its strict sense. Man for man, I believe the Colonist a better politician than his English cousin. The aristocratic class hardly exists, it is true. It is an injustice to presume for a moment that the Colonist in this, or any other Colony of Anglo-Saxon origin, is in any way unfit for the enjoyment of the freest political liberty. Higher class we have none, but the middle and lower classes are — I do not hesitate to say it — superior to the middle and lower classes at home. The Colonist is more enterprising and more pushing than the stay-at-home Englishman. He has better knowledge of the world and of human nature ; he graduates in a school in which politics are prominent, and he is free from an immense amount of ignorance and prejudice which is thought and written and acted in the Old World. But then comes the consideration, what elements are indispensable in the community to form the representative body, if, as is contended, that element is to be supreme ; or, what is the same thing in point of actual power, when that element constitutes the working majority? I will answer: (1) Localized and permanent population. (2) Established diversified interests; wealth, whether capital or regular income, the well-doing of professions, businesses and industries, agriculture, substantial industries, staples. Population herein we are deficient — 6,500 adult white men — sporadic, scattered, and temporary. How many care to vote? How many are aliens? Established interests here also are deficient ; isolation our drawback ; staples we have, but they are undeveloped or unlucky ; gold mining depressed ; agriculture under a disadvantage, and no good market ; coal not much sought after, and minerals a speculation; lumber unfortunate; fisheries unestablished, and commerce in the way of export killed by the abolition of the free port, or inferior from the absence of a large home demand. These are all our material elements of wealth, and we have them in no great abundance. Now, without them, what have we? A sparse community, in which the only thriving interest is agriculture, and that only because supply is not equal to demand ; or, in other words, small in numbers and importance, and no wealthy class at all. Can self-government be trusted to such a population? I say emphatically no! Now, I am not greatly in favour of a high qualification for representatives — for Members of the Council. It is sufficient for me that they represent substantial interests ; but when we have unsubstan- tial representatives representing unsubstantial and small constituencies, I can hardly under- stand anything more dangerous, and, I might add, more ridiculous or more extravagant. That representatives should be substantial people is desirable, but that they should represent sub- stantial interests is indispensable. If representatives are unfaithful to their trust the remedy is possible ; but where the class of electors is needy and unsubstantial, it seems impossible to conceive anything more disastrous. Taxation, as before has been observed, is the cream of legislation ; and taxation at the hands of unsubstantial men, or men forced to advocate the interests of unsubstantial constituencies, will be nothing but tyranny. Opinions may be divided in many other matters ; the votes of a party may be split on many points ; but in the hands of the masses the substantial class will be heavily and immeasurably taxed to suit the views of those who have nothing to lose and all to gain by any contemplated movement. Take the example of Vancouver Island in old days as an example of a small and a narrow community ; again, the example of Victoria, in Australia, where legislation is effected by the enormous majority of the advocates of the interests of constituents elected on a low qualification, — manhood suffrage. I cannot but understand that if the Government is in the hands of the representatives of the people, and a ivorking majority of them, supreme representative Govern- ment, if not equivalent ito, is, in effect, equal to Responsible Government. In the hands of the representatives of the people, supplies would all be voted, except conditions were exacted, favourable to the popular will. And, Sir, having treated on representative and Responsible Governments as applied to this Colony, let us see its bearing on the subject of Confederation ; and here I follow in the footsteps of the Hon. Member for New Westminster ; his reasoning is mine, but not his conclusions. Without Responsible Government, or its equivalent, or its approximate Government by a representative majority, we have no safeguard against a Govern- ment of Canadian officials. British Columbia will be a Colony of Canada, a dependency of a dependency, and Canadian interests will prevail. Dependence on England is bearable; they have no interests apart from ours ; but dependence on Canada would be unbearable ; their interests are different from ours. ' That is the conclusion that is inevitable ; it is but a logical conclusion. Confederation without Responsible Government, or Government by a working majority of representative members, is out of the question. Such a Government cannot be 120 Confederation Debate. had; .therefore Confederation is out of the question. I have thus, Sir, given my opinion on a point which is sure to meet with popular disfavour, hut I am proud to support the Executive when I think it is right ; and I would share the responsibility of a measure which would make that Executive obnoxious to blame. I have no chronic feeling of opposition to Government. I have no objection to individuals, nor do I impute to them sordid motives, but in the matter of Confederation the Executive of this Colony are in a false position; they act primarily, not for the good of the Colony, but for the good, or supposed good, of Great Britain; and they exercise the power of Government in a matter in which the interests of ithe Colony are mainly at stake to carry out, and effect an organic change of great importance to local interests. It is somewhat unfair to me to say I impute motives to the Executive. I only quarrel with them when they place themselves in a false position, as in the question of education; and in this, as in education, I say they oppose their own views to the views o^ the well understood wishes of all classes of the community; and here the carry through a scheme of Confederation ; they start the stone, and it is hard to see how or where it will roll. I sincerely feel for their position. The Colony will demand representative institutions, and they will be forced to yield them or back out of the position they have undertaken. The answer of the Executive Government to this is as given by the Hon. Attorney-General. The Attorney- General says that after Confederation we are bound to have what we require — Responsible Government. This is taking the matter for granted. It may be attained, but with a struggle. It is impossible to doubt that the Executive of the new Province will oppose representative Government or any diminution of their own rights or their own power. He says it is inoppor- tune and beside the question. The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Dr. Carrall) says: “If the people of British Columbia want Responsible Government no power on earth can prevent their having it.” This is but a promise for the future. The Hon. Chief Commissioner says the community is not fit for Responsible Government, but the matter is to be left to the new Council. Responsible Government will assuredly come with Confederation. The Hon. Member for Victoria (Dr. Helmcken) says: “This is the argument of the Government. But something must counterbalance Canada, otherwise with a working majority in the House the Dominion Government will keep things as they are when we are a Province of Canada.” Tuesday, March 22nd, 1870. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — Mr. Chairman, I rise with some diffidence to give my opinion as to whether we are fitted for Responsible Government or not, after the able speeches that have been delivered by Hon. Members on the subject. The Hon. and learned Member for Victoria City (Mr. Drake) has affirmed that Responsible Government would give the real government of the Colony to Victoria. This I believe is true, and if such were the case what injury it would inflict on New Westminster and the Mainland generally. I feel that we are not yet fit for Responsible Government ; but nevertheless, I think that the extent of the popu- lation is very much under-estimated. It has been stated that after the most careful calculation that can be made the white population cannot be calculated at over 5,000 adults ; but I think this is wrong, and no doubt it has been taken from the Government Accounts, which do not include Kootenay, Big Bend, or the settlements around New Westminster ; and I would make the adult white population to be 10,000, besides 40,000 Indians ; and these Indians ought not to be ignored. If they are not represented will it not be difficult to make them contented with the change from the Imperial Government to Canada? And it is for this reason that I have given a notice of motion in this House to show them that they are not forgotten, and that they may go on with their settlements and improvements in safety. But if we are to have Respon- sible Government I will not be answerable for the consequences. We are told the question is to be submitted to the people. I say let us wait for their decision. I have confidence in Canada, and am content to take my chance of being well governed by the Dominion Govern- ment, rather than try something of the working of which we know nothing. I have no doubt that great agitation on the subject of Responsible Government will be got up by the press, and that many members will gain their elections by confusing the questions of Confederation and Confederation Debate. 121 Responsible Government. I entirely concur with the Hon. Mr. Wood in believing that more liberal representation will do much more for the good of the Colony than Responsible Govern- ment. I believe in a good franchise being given, as foreshadowed by the Governor’s Speech; and I think twelve elected and eight nominated members would give satisfaction and work well, although report makes the change more liberal than this. We are now on the eve of prosperity. Our quartz mining is still to be commenced, and we only want good roads to Kootenay, by way of Eagle Pass, to open our resources in this respect. I do not intend to enter upon the question of Responsible Government. I believe it would be bad for us and is not required by the people. I shall support the Government in the clause now under discussion. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — M r. Chairman, I had not expected to say anything more on this subject ; but, on more mature reflection, I am satisfied that it is my duty to do so. The more the matter is argued, and the more the remarks of Government members are heard, the more I believe we are being asked to take a leap in the dark ; for all I can learn is that the new House is to be partly nominative and partly elective — and not responsible. The proportions are not stated. It has also cropped out that there will be a qualification for members, and also for electors. If the Government refer this matter to the people to know whether such a Constitution will suit them, I believe the people, to almost a unit, will reject it. The mass are opposed to Confederation altogether unless they can get a more liberal representation than that proposed by the Government. At the outset I proposed a Committee of all parties to consider and report upon the whole matter ; but the hasty judgment of the House, as I think, deferred the question. Now, Sir, I think if the Committee had met and suggested, for the protection of the property element, that one-third of the Members of the Council should be elected for a longer period and hold property qualifications, the country would have been satisfied. I can conceive on some such proposition as that being laid before the House, it would have been eminently successful ; as it now stands it is matter of opinion. I think the Governor has been led into error if the utterances that occasionally drop from members of this House mean anything. I cannot conceive that the people will accept such a Constitution. I should prefer that we should go into Confederation as a unit. I have made these few remarks to set my mind at rest, and to save myself trouble with my constituents if I should offer myself as a candidate again. I state that I believe the Government will jeopardise Confederation on this point. Hon. Mr. DEWDNEY — Sir, the question now under consideration has been so fully gone into 'by Hon. Members of the Council, that I feel it will be useless for me to take up the time of this House to any great length. At the commencement of this debate I had several argu- ments which I proposed to bring before your notice against Responsible Government, but I find that these have been ably handled by other Hon. gentlemen far more ably than I could have hoped to do ; and should I not have been convinced at the earlier stages of this debate, other arguments have been adduced which now completely set my mind at rest on the subject. I am opposed to the recommendations of both the Hon. Members for New Westminster and Lillooet, particularly the latter, and in opposing them I do not feel I am injuring the cause of Confederation. But while I feel, Mr. Chairman, that it is unnecessary for me to enter into the question of Responsible Government, I think I should not be doing my duty were I to remain silent upon one matter connected with this debate — one upon which I consider I am as capable of giving an opinion as any Hon. Member of this Council — namely, the feelings of the inhabitants of the Mainland generally with regard to Responsible Government. I have travelled through this country as much as any Hon. Member of this Council, and I have been brought in contact with all classes, and have mixed with all classes, and I have yet to meet the first individual who has expressed to me his desire for Responsible Government. Now, Mr. Chairman, do you believe, does this Council believe, that the cry throughout this Colony is — down with the present form of Government, let us have Responsible Government? Hon. Members of this House are aware, I presume, that my avocations for some years past, in fact as long as I have been in the Colony, have necessarily brought me in contact with all classes, and should this have been the cry, do you think I should not have heard it? I say distinctly again, I have yet to meet the first individual w r ho has expressed to me his desire for Respon- sible Government. The feeling of my constituents is not in favour of Responsible Government; on the contrary, it was distinctly expressed to me that they do not desire any change in the present form of Government. All they want is money to keep their trails in order and a 122 Confederation Debate. resident Magistrate to administer and carry out the laws. I believe that some Hon. Members of this House have mistaken the feelings of the country on this matter. Any dissatisfaction that exists is not with the present system of government but with the expense of carrying the system out. We all feel that, and we all know that, it cannot be avoided, for reasons which have been given over and over again in this House, namely, the smallness of population ; scattered as it is over so vast an area. I have not heard during the debate any arguments that will prove to me or to this House that under Responsible Government we could have a cheaper form of government. I for one could not be convinced that we should. I believe that the public moneys would be wasted, peculation and dishonesty would be the order of the day. We are told by the Hon. Member for Yale we must have a beginning. I am aware of that fact, and for one shall assist to put off the evil day. I prefer for a time — until our population increases — to live under the present form of Government, one under which, I am proud to say, I have lived for eleven years without seeing the faults of maladministration and other evil accusations that have been hurled at it by the Hon. Member for Lillooet. I am aware that that Hon. gentleman was himself in some subordinate position under the Government; he may of his own personal knowledge, while in that capacity, be aware of some malpractice, but I defy him to point out a single instance brought before the notice of the Government that did not receive the strictest investigation and in which the individual complained of, if the charges were proved, was not discharged. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I shall take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the officers generally that have carried on the Government of this Colony during the eleven years that I have lived here ; and I challenge any Hon. gentle- man to prove by the records of Her Majesty’s Colonies, that in any Colony or Dependency of the British Crown laws have been more justly administered, life and property better protected, or the affairs of the Colony carried on with greater rectitude than in the one in which we are now living. Holding these views, I must decline to support either of the recommendations before the Committee. Hon. Mr. ALSTON — Sir, I am in favour of Responsible Government, but not the form that has been discussed in this House at so great a length. I believe all representative Govern- ments are responsible. The Hon. and learned Member for Victoria District has quoted John Stuart Mill. I believe, Sir, that the words Responsible Government do not occur in his book; he shows that the form applicable to one country will not do for another. We have heard enough in this Council to make me believe that the people do not want Responsible Govern- ment ; I believe that a representative form of Government is the only form that will suit this Colony. It has been well shown by the Hon. Mr. Wood, that from the difficulty of getting districts represented, this Colony is not adapted for purely representative institutions. I think it most desirable that Executive Members should have seats in this Council, and I think that a partially elective House would best represent the interests of the entire community. The American form of Government is in a certain sense responsible, executive officers being elected for a term of four years. England possesses a different form, and Canada differs again from England. The Colony from which Governor Musgrave came is the last that has received Responsible Government ; thus we may fairly trust to His Excellency to judge for us as to the probability of its working well here. The smallest Colony possessing Responsible Government is Prince Edward’s Island ; and we who do not possess a population one-twelfth the size of that of Newfoundland, are asking for Responsible Government. The Hon. and learned Member for Victoria City (Mr. Drake), who seems to uphold Responsible Government against his own convictions, admits that all power would be held in Victoria ; and he says that there would be no harm in such centralization. I think, Sir, that he has read John Stuart Mill to little purpose if such be his conviction. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — -Sir, I am more impressed than ever with the absolute need of Responsible Government. I think the Hon. Chief Commissioner particularly, and the Hon. Member for Victoria City, have proved conclusively that two-thirds of the people representing property are determined to have Responsible Government. The Hon. Member for the City told us the people were not in favour of Responsible Government, and in the same sentence he tells us that if Confederation were set before the people with Responsible Government mixed up with it, the people would take Responsible Government to the exclusion of material interests. I have said, and say again, I am in favour of Confederation, and I earnestly hope that it will be for the benefit of the Colony. I sometimes think that some Hon. Members at the other end Confederation Debate. of the House intend to defeat Confederation. I may be called an extremist — an agitator ; I admit I am. I desire to see the people having a share in the Government, instead of being under a despotism, or what is equivalent to it. I have been in this Colony nearly eleven years ; I am satisfied that the people want Responsible Government. Hon. Members say there are different forms of Responsible Government ; admitted. I am not sure that it would be advisable to introduce any one system in its entirety here. Hon. Members have been quoting writers upon this subject ; I will quote Lord Macaulay, lie says : “ Government, like a good coat, is fit for the body for which it is made.” I say if we cannot live on Responsible- Government, we cannot live on irresponsible Government. I do not know what is shadowed forth in His Excellency’s speech ; I confess I cannot understand it. If the Governor had promised a two- thirds elective House, with heads of department sitting to give information without voting, then I think the question of Responsible Government would never have been considered. I ask Hon. Members to endeavour to approximate, and if they cannot agree to full Responsible Government, then to give us as liberal a form as they can. If you withhold Responsible Government you lose Confederation. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — Mr. Chairman, in rising to reply to what has fallen from Hon. gentlemen in opposition to Responsible Government, I crave the kind indulgence of this House ; and should I. in the course of my remarks, appear unduly harsh or unkind, I beg Hon. gentle- men to attribute it to earnestness in advocating a great cause, rather than to a desire to wound the feelings of any. The Hon. Member for Cariboo, who is also a Member of the Executive, made a very convenient, yet, to my mind, singularly ineffective, reply to one point in my speech of Friday. I had, or fancied I had, with considerable force and elaborateness, pointed out the difficulties that might naturally be presumed to lie in the way of obtaining Responsible Government under the new constitution proposed to be conferred upon this Colony ; and the only answer is that the Organic Act makes the necessary provision. I was as well aware of the provision made in that Act before the Hon gentleman spoke as after; but no attempt has been made to meet the difficulties I suggested. The Hon. gentleman, with that facetiousness, poetry and ready wit for which he is so justly celebrated, proceeded to point out the undesir- ableness of Responsible Government in this Colony. Under it, he told us, Cabinets would be too versatile. In fact, he described the working of such institutions as a sort of dissolving views, a thimble-rigging operation, “ now you see it, now you don’t,” in such quick succession would the changes be rung. The Chief Commissioner would, it appeared from his description, be much like Lincoln’s celebrated flea. Now, Sir, where did the Hon. gentleman acquire his experience of the working of Responsible Government? Was it not in Canada? What do we find to be the experience of that country? Certainly it does not in any way warrant the conclusions arrived at by my Hon. friend. On the contrary, we find a change of Ministry to be of very rare occurrence. The present Premier of Canada has, with one unimportant inter- mission, been at the head of the Government for some twelve or fourteen years! As I stated on a former occasion, the people of British Columbia are not politicians, nor are they fond of change. They are naturally conservative. Give them a people’s Government, and in no part of Her Majesty’s Colonial Empire will a less versatile, a more conservative and loyal people be found. The Honourable gentleman said Responsible Government would blow the chaff into this House. Now, although I listened with pleasure, as I always do, to that gentleman’s oratory and humour, I could not but experience a feeling of regret to find him on the wrong side of a great question, taking a false step. It is sad to witness the early mistakes of a young man of such talents, ambition, and promise; and when I hear such words coming from my Hon. friend, I begin to fear that the bright future, the brilliant political career I had marked out for him may never be realized. Sir, a certain proportion of chaff may be blown into this House, under Respon- sible Government, as is the case now; but, depend upon it, under the form of government we seek, the chaff would quickly be blown out at the back door, before the breath of public opinion. The people can always discriminate between wheat and chaff, and Responsible Government supplies the most effective winnowing-fan with which to separate the two. We were reminded by that Hon. gentleman that Responsible Government had its failures as well as its successes; and he referred to Victoria, Australia, and to Jamaica, as instances of failure. Now, I cannot but think the Hon. gentleman has been singularly unfortunate in going to these Colonies to prove his proposition. The former ranks amongst the most flourishing, progressive, and wealthy of all Her Majesty’s Colonial possessions. Doubtless very grave political difficulties 124 Confederation Debate. were encountered, and many mistakes characterized the earlier working of Responsible Govern- ment in that fine Colony; but it would be most unfair to charge all these to the possession of such institutions. Nay, most of them had their origin in a different political system. As for Jamaica, Hon. gentlemen must be aware that it never possessed Responsible Government. A mixed representative system it had; and the chief cause of failure was the absence of responsi- bility. It was just because those who administered the affairs of that unfortunate Colony were not responsible to the people that the opposition, led by the ill-fated Gordon— a man of unquestionable ability, although, perhaps, somewhat deficient in judgment — was induced finally to assume the extreme attitude which resulted so fatally. The Hon. and learned Attorney- General made an effort, not altogether warranted by facts, to force the advocates of Responsible Government into a false and disadvantageous position, in relation to the Government pro- gramme ; but Hon. gentlemen will recollect how anxious I was, at the beginning of this debate, to meet the views and adopt the suggestions of that Hon. and learned gentleman, in respect to the particular time and mode of approaching this question. My desire to give the Government a general and strong support upon the great question of Confederation is no secret in this House ; and I think I can speak with equal confidence in regard to the views and intentions of my Hon. friend on my left (the Member for Yale). But enough has already been said upon this point ; and I have only to add that I utterly refuse to occupy the position in which the Hon. and learned Attorney-General appears desirous of placing me. That Hon. gentleman was content to give the same answer to the main objection as that given all round the Govern- ment end of the table, viz., that the Organic Act provides the necessary and ready means of obtaining what we seek; and he further tells us that, inasmuch as Responsible Government relieves Governors of responsibility, a Governor would naturally be ready to make the conces- sion. Such, however, is not the accustomed working of human nature. Such is not the lesson of history. The ruler hugs power as the miser does his gold, nor parts with it only as it is extorted piecemeal by the people. I am charged with having used threats — threats of blood ! Now, Sir, I must plead “ not guilty ” to this charge. While carefully avoiding everything in the nature of threat and prediction, I asked the Government to read carefully those lessons written in blood around us, and implored them to take warning from the errors and profit by the successes of others. We were told by the Hon. and learned Attorney-General that the Governor is powerless to grant what the Resolution asks ; but might not the same objection be raised to almost every recommendation passed in connection with Confederation? His Excel- lency in asking Her Majesty’s Government for power to give us a new Constitution. The Resolution merely suggests a more liberal Constitution than His Excellency proposes. There is, therefore, no weight in this objection. The Honourable gentleman next tells us that the Resolution implies want of confidence in the Canadian Government; that they will not listen to the cry of the people for Responsible Government. Now, the Hon. gentleman must be aware that Canada can only listen to our cry when it is heard in the particular form prescribed by the Constitution. The people can only cry through the Government it is proposed to give them under the Constitution foreshadowed in His Excellency's opening message; and I have already endeavoured to point out the probability that the new Government might refuse to utter a cry in that direction at the desire of the people. There is no such expression of want of confidence in the resolution. The Canadian Government could not interfere — would have no power to give us Responsible Government — until asked by our Local Government to do so. Such objections I must, therefore, regard as frivolous, and utterly unworthy of the Hon. and learned Attorney-General. The Hon. Chief Commissioner followed with his accustomed ability, but, I venture to think, without his usual discretion. That Hon. gentleman set out by telling us that he quite understood it to be necessary for certain members, in order to be consistent with pen and speech outside of this House, to bring forward this subject; that it was a logical necessity, inexorable fate. Now, Sir, I cannot see into that Hon. gentleman’s heart, any more than I can into the mysterious Executive Chamber. I will not, therefore, permit myself to impute motives to that Hon. gentleman in his opposition to Responsible Government; but he must permit me to be the best judge of those motives which have impelled me, with some degree of reluctance, to take a stand in opposition to the Government upon this question. It may appear necessary, in order to be consistent with word and pen, that I should advocate in this House great principles which I have advocated elsewhere; but it may be permitted me to say that, whether here or elsewhere, I advocate Responsible Government under Confederation, Confederation Debate. 125 because I conceive it not only to be the right of the people, but their interest also. We are constantly told that we should not have mixed this question up with the terms. We have not mixed it up with the terms ; but the Government has mixed the terms up with it ; and if there is any blame, any responsibility in this connection, it must rest with the Government, and not. with the Opposition. The Hon. gentleman teJls us that it is impossible to work Responsible- Government with a population so scattered ; and in the same breath he tells us that we have Responsible Government now, — that the officials are responsible to the Governor, and he to the Queen. Well, certainly, this is a sort of responsibility ; but it is not precisely the kind we want.. The responsibility now existing takes the wrong direction. It is not responsibility to the people,, but to the supreme power. In this sense the most despotic form of government in the world may be termed Responsible Government. The members of the Government of the Czar of Russia are responsible to him, and he is responsible to the Great Ruler of all ; ergo, Russia has Responsible Government ! The Hon. gentleman must see the absurdity of his startling propo- sition. He next tells us that if the people desire Responsible Government it is because they have been educated up to it by the press. There is more truth than argument in this. Doubt- less the press is in this, as in other civilized countries, the great educator of the people, especially in matters political. Have not the people of England been similarly educated up to every great political reform? Such constitutes a legitimate and important function of the press. But the honourable gentleman goes further and tells us that if the present Government is unpopular with the people the responsibility rests with the press, which has by misrepresentation created prejudice in the public mind. This proposition I beg most unqualifiedly to deny. The honour- able gentleman has confounded cause and effect. The press has opposed the Government because it is unpopular ; and the Government is unpopular because it is not a people’s Government — because it does not possess the principle of responsibility to the people. It must be remembered that the press subsists on popular favour ; and in order to subsist it must oppose an unpopular form of Government. The press of this Colony has acted rather as the exponent than the moulder and leader of public opinion in its opposition to the present form of Government. As I have repeatedly said, it is not the officials that are unpopular, so much as the system under which they administer. No officials- can be popular under such a system. It places them in a false position. The press is, therefore, not to blame ; it is the faithful exponent of public opinion. The honourable gentleman on my left [Mr. Holbrook] dissents from this view. It is the habit of some honourable gentlemen to affect to sneer at the press of this Colony. They admit that the press of England is all I claim for it; but they allude sneeringly to the press of this Colony. Now, I am free to admit that the leading journal of this Colony would lose by a comparison with the leading journal of England. It is smaller, and, perhaps, less ability is displayed in its editorial columns. But would not such a comparison be unfair? Apply this rule to other institutions of the Colony and what would be the result? Taking the press of this Colony with all its imperfections, and I boldly assert that it w r ill compare favourably with that of any other country of like age and population. That is the way to institute the com- parison ; and it is the only true way. When I hear honourable gentlemen indulging in sneers at the press I invariably arrive at one conclusion ; and I will not tell you what that conclusion is. It will not be necessary for me to again allude to the improper use made of what I said about the horny-handed class, especially as the Hon. Mr. Walkem fully vindicated me. One more point and I have done with the honourable the Chief Commissioner. That gentleman repeated the now stereotyped argument that the Dominion Government, being based on liberal institu- tions, would not withhold Responsible Government if desired by the people of British Columbia. That argument has been so often met that I was surprised to hear it repeated by that honour- able gentleman. Need I say, for the twentieth time, that it is not the prerogative of the* Canadian Government to give, unless asked by our local Government, and that our local Govern- ment will, from its organic nature, be averse to ask anything of the kind? Surely I am entitled to regard the constant iteration of those exploded arguments as evidence of the weakness of the Government cause. Passing to the speech of the Honourable Mr. Walkem, my task is an easy one ; for although that honourable gentleman spoke with his accustomed eloquence and agreeableness of word and manner, all must have felt that his effort had about it an air of special pleading in a bad cause. The principal objection that gentleman brought against the position I took on Friday was, that Responsible Government is not a principle, but a form. Now, I think it may be regarded as either or both, and lam not disposed to quarrel about mere 12 C Confederation Debate. words. What I contend for is Responsible Government. That honourable gentleman tells us that Canada did not get Responsible Government till her population reached about two millions. Now, while that gentleman is greatly astray in his figures, I cannot discover in his facts any evidence in support of the proposition he wishes to establish. They may prove that Responsible Government was long wrongfully withheld from Canada. I now come to my honourable friend the senior member for Victoria City. That honourable gentleman started out by telling us that he intended to support the Government scheme, and to support it strongly; but he added that he would not say much about Responsible Government. Would that he had adhered to the latter resolution. It was but natural that, feeling himself on the wrong side of a great principle, he should be disposed to say little. But, unfortunately for himself, he has said much, a great deal too much. He said some things which it would have been much better to have left unsaid. He told us that Government for, by, and from the people means Government for, by, and with the politicians. But he does not stop there. He tells this House that the advocates of Responsible Government will be willing to surrender all the other conditions in order to obtain that form of Government as a means of securing office, power, pickings ! Now, Sir, let us look at the political history, and position of the honourable gentleman who presumes, with so much boldness, to judge of other people’s motives. I recollect when, some two years ago, that honourable gentleman was the most ardent of all Confederationists ; when he desired to rush into an unconditional and blind union ; Avhen he urged the then Governor to negotiate union by telegraph. At that time I was doubtful about the policy of immediate union, regarding such a step as somewhat premature and unreal, so long as the immense intervening territory remained an unorganized and unopen waste. Holding these views I proposed to strike the word ‘ imme- diate ’ out of the resolution which had been moved by the Honourable Mr. DeCosmos ; but so enthusiastic, so fanatical, was the honourable the senior member for Victoria City that he longed for a stronger word than ‘ immediate.’ Subsequently we saw that honourable gentleman the most ultra, the most rabid Anti-Confederate. We saw him opposing it in every way, both in the House and out of it, denouncing Canada as a most undesirable connection. Now, what do we see? We see the Anti-Confederate Lion rampant suddenly metamorphosed into the Canadian Lamb passant, with his longing eyes fixed on Ottawa ! Such has been the magic influence of the mysterious Executive Chamber. I do not, for one, regret the transformation ; but I do object to that gentleman turning round so suddenly and denouncing the motives by which others are actuated. Does not that honourable gentleman live in a ‘ glass house ’ in that sense which peculiarly disentitles him to throw stones? Is not he guilty of measuring other people’s corn in his own bushel? Did not he cast all his political principles to the winds and bolt in at the very first opening to place and power that presented itself? And who knows but there may be at this moment a mission to Ottawa dangling temptingly before his eager eyes? Is this the man who is entitled to turn round and, looking down from his pinnacle of temporary power, judge others? Strutting his hour of brief authority, he taunts us with seek- ing Responsible Government as a stepping-stone to power and pickings. I hurl back, with scorn and contempt, the accusation in his teeth ! To pass, however, to the so-called arguments put forward by that honourable gentleman, he tells us that the resolution asks for a Government like that of Ontario, — that we should require 40 or 50 members. Now, Sir, it is difficult to give him credit for sincerity, as every honourable member must see that the resolution asks nothing of the kind. It asks for a constitution based upon the principle of Responsible Government as existing in Ontario. That honourable gentleman has attempted to make me inconsistent with myself in saying that we shall he under the heel of Canada without Responsible Government, and that Canada desires that we should have such institutions. Now, I see nothing inconsistent in this. Canada does desire that the people of British Columbia should possess as full powers of managing their own local affairs as the people of the other Provinces possess ; but Canada will have no power to grant these institutions until asked to do so in a constitutional way through and by our Local Government ; and the weight of my objection lies in the reasonable belief that, however desirous the people may be, the Local Government will be naturally averse to a change calculated to lessen its power, and weaken the tenure by which its members hold office. Again, we are told that the Governor would not be disposed to withhold institutions which would relieve him of responsibility. However plausible this proposition may appear in theory, it is scarcely borne out by experience. As I have already stated, in reply to the honour- able and learned Attorney-General, history presents rulers in a different light. We are asked Confederation Debate. 127 what measures of importance have been introduced that have not been introduced by the Government? By this the honourable gentleman wishes, I presume, to convey the idea that the Government so fully meets the wants of the people as to leave nothing for representative members to do. In what singular contrast is this with his utterances during past sessions. Here, again, we have the kindly bleating of the docile Confederation Lamb, instead of the terrific roar of the Anti-Confederate Lion of the past. Verily, the mysterious influences of the Executive Chamber must be potent. The honourable gentleman tells us that if we couple the question of Responsible Government with the conditions of union, the people will be willing to accept poorer terms in their eagerness to obtain it. Surely, if language means anything, this is an inadvertent admission of what the honourable gentleman has been so stoutly denying, viz. : that the people desire Responsible Government. Leaving the honourable gentleman to the lashings of his own conscience, and to the seductive influences of the mysterious Executive Chamber, we next come to deal with the Honourable the Registrar of Titles. The Honourable Mr. Alston announces himself in favour of Responsible Government, but not the kind that would make the heads of Departments go in and out. He holds all Representative Government to be Responsible Government. The honourable gentleman may be entitled to hold a theory pecu- liarly his own; but it is scarcely the fitting time to announce personal theories. We are now dealing with the question of Responsible Government, as understood by political economists, not as understood by the honourable gentleman who has just propounded a political paradox. He has been reading John Stuart Mill, and he tells us that writer never mentions Responsible Government. I have not read Mill’s theory, but I have read enough to know that he goes even further than I am prepared to go in the direction of responsibility. We have next the honour- able gentleman for Kootenay telling this House that with all his experience in the Colony he never heard a man express a desire for Responsible Government, and that his own constituents were distinctly opposed to it. Now, so far as that honourable gentleman’s constituents are con- cerned, I am prepared to think that his opportunities of learning their views upon that or any other subject have scarcely been such as to entitle him to express a very positive opinion ; but when he tells this House that in all his experience in this Colony he has never heard a desire for Responsible Government expressed, I can only say that I am surprised. The honourable gentleman cannot but know, if he has not turned a deaf ear to politics altogether, that the question of Responsible Government has been a prominent issue at more than one election, and that it has been used as one of the chief reasons for Confederation from one end of the Colony to the other. But, Sir, I fear I have already wearied the House. Permit me to say, however, that throughout this protracted debate the efforts on the Government side of the House have been characterized by a want of argument, and by a sort of special pleading, a begging of the question almost painful to listen to. Every effort has been made to raise false issues and to misconstrue remarks coming from this side of the House, and a most unfair attempt has been made to place the whole question in a false and disadvantageous position ; yet this is scarcely surprising. It was not to be expected that the unrepresentative members would approve the measure. I feel, however, quite indifferent about their votes. We have a large majority of the representative members with us, and their vote must virtually carry the measure. The great proposition I desire to impress upon honourable members is this : The Colony is about to become a Province of the Dominion of Canada. No union can be equitable and just which does not give this Colony equal political power — equal control over their own local affairs with that possessed by the people of the Provinces with which it is proposed to unite. I care not how good the other conditions may be ; if the people of British Columbia are placed in a false political position they will not be content, and the inauguration of such a union will only prove the beginning of new political discontent and agitation. Mistakes will doubtless result from the first workings of Responsible Government, but these mistakes were better made now than years hence, when the consequences might be more serious. The period of lisping, stammering infancy must be passed. Surely it is better to pass it now, while the political questions are few and simple, and the interests comparatively small, than to wait for great development. Almost every speaker on the Government side has accused me of want of confidence in the Dominion Government. I have no want of confidence in that Government. I know the men who compose it too well for that. I know them as honourable, liberal, large- minded statesmen. But it is our Local Government under the new Constitution, proposed in terms so vague in His Excellency’s opening message, that I doubt. The Canadian Government 128 Confederation Debate. will possess no constitutional power to grant us political relief until asked to do so by our Local Government ; and it is the hesitation, the disinclination of the Local Government to move in that direction which. I dread. I would again warn the Government against endanger- ing the whole scheme by having it submitted to the people unaccompanied by “ Responsible Government.” Hon. Dr. CARRALL — Sir, on Friday last the honourable member for New Westminster spoke at some length upon this subject, and I replied as best I could, and it is in accordance with the eternal fitness of things that I should make a very few remarks. It is one of those happy things in nature that where the poison is there is the antidote always near. (Laughter.) I propose to give the antidote. I laid down two principles : First, that the Government did not believe that Responsible Government, as it is maintained in England, w T as applicable to this Colony. I hold to that. I maintain that no one has controverted this proposition; no one has proved that it could be adapted to the requirements of this Colony; there has been burning eloquence and all that sort of thing, but no proof. But I say, Sir, that even now there is a measure of responsibility in this Government. I am responsible to my constituents, and if there is such an overwhelming force in favour of Responsible Government can I ever return here. The utmost that the honourable member for New Westminster has proved is, that under Con- federation it would take a great deal of time and much agitation to get Responsible Government, a minimum of five years and a maximum of ten years, and that as it would take that time it was better that w T e should have it at once. I say if one proposition is correct the other must be incorrect. If there is such an overwhelming desire on the part of the people for it, they will get it. If the majority even are in favour of Responsible Government there is no con- stitutional power to prevent their getting it. There is no desire on the part of the Government to withhold it. I say it is a want of responsibility of the Executive that has rendered them unpopular ; but the people have never been asked to contrast the present form of Government with that shadowed out by His Excellency ; and I say that heads of Departments under that system will be, to a certain extent, responsible. The present system is bad, but the officers are good. I say that the requirements of the Colony will be met by the system proposed by His Excellency. If it is not, then let the people say so, and get Responsible Government. The honourable member for New Westminster allows that it is only a question of time under the Organic Act. If it should take five years, then my point that there is not such a strong desire for it is proved. I said, and I say again, that in Jamaica they could not work Responsible Government, or even representative institutions, and in Victoria it remains to this day a monument of stupidity and mismanagement. With regard to the assertion of the honourable member for New Westminster, I say that if speaking and voting from conviction are false steps, and a bar to advancement in political life, then I don’t want to advance a step further in that direction. I say that Responsible Government has not been made a distinct issue in elections. The Government of the people was to be one of the consequences of Confederation ; I hope we shall get a people’s Government before it. The present Executive Council is one-third unofficial ; the work they have done has brought a shapeless, formless phantom into one harmonious whole, and they propose to precede Confederation with a form of Government which will enable the people to decide what form of Government they will have. I coincide with the Honourable Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, that it was not necessary to introduce this subject into the Confederation Resolution. I am sorry that it was brought up at all in connection with our scheme. Hon. Dr, HELMCKEN — Sir, I wish to say in reply to the remarks of the honourable member for New Westminster, that I support the Government from conviction. I do not shirk my respon- sibility. I said that the one great thing the supporters of Responsible Government are afraid of is, that it shall be set alongside of Representative Government. Honourable members may find when the resolutions return from Canada that I have still something to say upon them. The recommendation of the Honourable Mr. Humphreys was put by the Chair, and on division was lost. The recommendation of Honourable Mr. Robson was put by the Chair, and on division was lost. Clause fifteen then passed as read. The Honourable ATTORNEY-GENERAL introduced clause sixteen : “ 16. The provisions in ‘ The British North America Act, 1S67,’ shall (except those parts “ thereof which are in terms made, or by reasonable intendment may be held to be specially Confederation Debate. 129 “ applicable to and only affect one, and not the whole, of the Provinces now comprising the “Dominion, and except so far as the same may be varied by this resolution) be applicable to “ British Columbia in the same way, and to the like extent, as they apply to the other Provinces “ of the Dominion, and as if the Colony of British Columbia had been one of the Provinces “ originally united by the said Act.” Honourable Dr. Helmcken and Honourable Mr. Drake objected to this clause on the ground that its passing would kill the notices already on the paper. The Honourable ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave an assurance that the resolutions of which notice had been given should be discharged, and the opposition was withdrawn. Clause sixteen passed as read. “ With reference to defences : — “ A That it shall be an understanding with the Dominion that their influence will be used “ to the fullest extent to procure the continued maintenance of the Naval Station at Esquimalt. “ B. Encouragement to be given to develop the efficiency and organization of the Volunteer “ force in British Columbia.” On clause A being read by the Chairman, Honourable Mr. Holbrook objected to Esquimalt being named, on the ground that it was only fair to New Westminster that one gunboat should be stationed there. Honourable ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I should have been very sorry to have this clause inserted if I thought it would give us only two or three gunboats. Honourable COLONIAL SECRETARY (Mr. Hankin)— Because the Naval Station is at Esquimalt it does not follow that every ship will remain there. The commanding officer can send ships where he pleases. Clause A passed as read. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS asked what ‘encouragement’ meant in clause B. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — At present there is no means of ascertaining what encour- agement can be given ; I suppose arms and money. Clause B passed as read. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — M r. Chairman, I gave notice of my intention to bring up a clause with regard to provision being made to protect the agricultural produce of this Colony. It has been said by the honourable Executive Member for Victoria City that this differential tariff is quite a new thing to me. If he will take the trouble to refer to the Colonist of the 15th May, 1868, he will find that in an article written by myself I touched on this matter; it is not new to me. I am thoroughly persuaded that the district which I represent will be a unit against Con- federation without a provision to keep up protection. From Comox to Sooke the opinion on this point is as that of one man, and I believe I may say that it is the same thing as regards the whole of the agricultural districts on the Mainland, from Soda Creek to Kamloops. I hold, with respect to protection, that when farmers shall be able to produce farm produce in sufficient quantity to enable them to reduce their prices as low as the prices obtained by the farmers of Oregon and Washington Territory; then protection is not essential, for this great and sufficient reason that if we can produce as good an article at home as we can get abroad, which we can put down at the same price, the cost of transport will be a sufficient protection. Our farmers will have a natural protection. With regard to manufactures, I am one of those who believe that our manufactures ought to be protected. If we go into public works we must have waggons and machinery, and the waggon-builders should have protection ; then, again, farming implements should be made in the Colony, and encouragement should be given to the manufacturer of these things. Again, there are the bootmaker and tailor, and the soapmaker and others, even the brewer, for whom we require protection. I ask from the Executive the insertion of this principle : “ That British Columbia shall be entitled to levy and collect any tax, or taxes, on the sales of foreign produce and manufactures entered for home consumption equal in amount to the duties of Customs now levied and collected on the same under the ‘ Customs Ordinance, 1867,’ provided, always, that British Columbia shall not be entitled to levy and collect any such tax, or taxes, as aforesaid, if the duties of Customs of Canada extended and applied to British Columbia at the time of and after Union on such foreign produce and manufactures shall be as high as the duties of Customs now levied and collected on the same under the ‘ Customs Ordinance, 1867,’ and provided always, that such foreign produce and manufactures shall be construed to mean no more and none other than such foreign produce and manufactures as may enter into competition 9 . 130 Confederation Debate. with the produce and manufactures of British Columbia.” I don’t care how it is put in, our manufactures would come into competition with goods from Canada. That is a natural evil which we cannot avoid. There will be other advantages arising out of Confederation which will counterbalance this. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I have nothing to do with the honourable gentleman’s newspaper articles. I can only say that differential duties are contrary to the views of Her Majesty’s Government. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — The honourable member’s explanation is different from the clause itself. I suppose from the explanation that it is intended to apply to all foreign produce and manufac- tures imported. I think it will be better that I should move my motion as an amendment to his, so as to confine the protection to agricultural produce. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I don’t expect any resolution of mine to pass. If it should pass I shall be quite surprised ; but as I hold this to be the very keystone, and of more consequence than Responsible Government, I deem it my duty to bring it forward. But to confine the protection to agricultural produce will not reach the issue. It would not touch our rude manufactures. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — This is left an open question by the Government. I wish it to be distinctly understood that this question of the agriculture of the country is an open question. I think I shall be found on the side of these honourable gentlemen. I think with the honourable member for Victoria District that this is the most important question comprised in these resolu- tions. If the terms do not contain a clause giving protection to agricultural interests, I will answer for it there will be no Confederation. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I would ask the honourable member to define how far this is left an open question? Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I mean that every member of the Government is free to vote as he pleases upon this question of encouragement to the agricultural interests of the Colony. Hon. Mr. WOOD — Then it is free for official members to vote these recommendations? Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — Certainly it is, and it is right that it should be so ; for I consider, Sir, that we have come to a most important question, one that concerns our own country. Con- federation must not come like an eclipse, it must not produce a darkness and then leave us to recover. I say that if these terms are left to pass as they are, and return from Canada, and are passed by the people, they will produce great ills. I say that the agricultural interests are most important ; when we come to manufacturing interests it is different, they have made but little progress. Manufacturers will meet with competition from Canada, and the Dominion would not stand it; we cannot have protection for manufactures, but with regard to farm produce it is different. I say that the farmers could not exist without protection ; you will depopulate the country by bringing Confederation without protection. I have stated that this Colony affords more inducement to people to settle than any other Colony I know of; yet we do not raise sufficient stock for ourselves. Look at the statistics : $111,447 is the value of agricultural pro' duce — barley, flour, malt, wheat, and oats — imported. Of barley, there is nearly one million pounds imported, and this would take about 450 acres to grow in ; of malt, about 4,500 bushels, which would require ninety acres to grow in; of flour and wheat about 87,000 bushels, which would require about 2,500 acres to grow in ; of oats, about 2,364 bushels, which would require about sixty acres to grow in ; altogether about 3,080 acres. More land must be in cultivation to produce the quantity of cereals which I have enumerated as being imported annually, and this number of acres, supposing a man to cultivate fifty acres, would give employment to 123 men ; so that 123 men will save the Colony $111,447, or $900 each, besides growing what they want for their own consumption. In relation to this it must be recollected that mills would be at work to grind, machinery would be required, and labour of other kinds would be required, such, for instance, as brewers. In addition to this comes in pigs. There were 568 of these animals imported last year ; less by 28 than in the preceding year. This is an improvement, when we consider that the amount of bacon and hams imported is 61,740 pounds less than last year. To make this bacon about 500 hogs are required; so you will see that nearly the whole amount of bacon is made by and from foreign hogs. Take butter — 82,000 pounds, or forty tons, were imported last year. It will take 400 more cows, yielding 200 pounds each per annum, to produce this amount, and it would save the Colony $31,538 per annum. One thousand seven hundred head of beef cattle would save annually $96,949, but it presupposes 6,800 more cows at least. Now, then, to supply ourselves with beef and mutton, and cheese, 3,000 more cows are required ; but it takes four years to produce beef. We import 7,000 sheep. Surely no one will tell us that we have no room for 7,000 sheep or Confederation Debate. 131 3,000 cows. Why, it only means 20,000 acres, or tliirty-six miles of land ; six miles will supply the cereals — thirty-six miles in all. Why, the flats at the Fraser would yield it all. The cattle business certainly requires capital, but the capital will produce great results, and recollect the good it would do the country, the amount of labour employed and land cultivated for the purpose ; wool, hides, and bones for house use or export. What I wish to impress upon you, Sir, is the profit that might be derived from the introduction of a couple of hundred families. What an immense loss the Colony would sustain if this were thrown open to the Americans. What a magnificent field for immigration, particularly when we consider how much more of agricultural produce will be required when public works are carried on. The market is good now ; how much better it would be then. I think it would be doing those farmers who had commenced farming under a protective tariff a great injustice to withdraw protection from them now. We must have an agricultural population. If Confederation comes, and brings the Canadian tariff, we destroy the agricultural interests altogether, and the country will become a wilderness. Confederation with- out these terms will not, in my opinion, be accepted. Leave them out and Confederation will most assuredly fail. Farmers in the Upper Country have a natural protection from the difficulty of transport. The day will come, and pretty quickly, when they will raise more there than they have a market for. They must find an outlet, which must be where the consumers are. If the duty is not maintained, how can they send their produce down? If the railway should be built, the cost of transporting goods from the interior will be diminished, and farms of the Upper Country will then find the tariff of more consequence to them than to the people of the Lower Country. I say Confederation will not go down without protection. The agricultural interest will prefer living in comfort with protection, and without Confederation, than in a perpetual struggle for livelihood under Confederation. I am in favour of protecting our farming interests ; but if we had a lower scale upon some other goods I should think it an advantage. I support protection to the agricultural interest, and the throwing open of our ports to other things. The latter part is, I fear, not an open question. Hon. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS— (Mr. Hamley)— It is difficult to tell which resolu- tion the Hon. Member is speaking in favour of. It is quite true that protection may be too little on some things and too much on others; for instance, I consider the duty on horses too high. I will tell Hon. gentlemen that a revision of the tariff was considered last year by a Committee appointed by the late Governor, and a majority of that Committee, who were all business men, reported in favour of lowering the duties on agricultural produce, and there was a special report in favour of making Victoria almost a free port. Hon. Me. DeCOSMOS — T hat was the bogus Council, I suppose. Hon. Mr. HAMLEY — They were a Committee of gentlemen whom the late Governor thought fit to appoint. I think the tariff must be altered to suit this Colony, but I believe it must be left to the Canadian Parliament to alter. What will our representative members do sitting in the Canadian Parliament, except they look after our interests? There is no obstacle that I know of to .there being a different tariff to suit the interests of this or any particular Province of the Dominion. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — There is no reason that there should be a similar tariff all over, but I think it must be altered by the Canadian Parliament. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I do not think that it is necessary that one tariff should prevail all over the Dominion. Hon. Mr. HAMLEY— Not at all, not at all. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — But there can be no differential duties ; that is forbidden by English statutes. Hon. Mr. HAMLEY — No; not by statute.; by instructions. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — So far from leaving it to the Canadian Parliament, I say we must go in with ^t altered. How absurd for eight members to attempt to revise the tariff of British Columbia in the Dominion Parliament. Hon. Mr. TRUTCH — I don’t see it. Hon. Mr. HAMLEY— Nor do I. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — Why, look how ridiculous it is to come to this House to propose any alteration in the tariff. How much more so in the Dominion Parliament, where so many would be on the other side? If at all, it must be done by ourselves. The Canadian Government must agree to it before we go into Confederation. The other interests are subsidiary to it. On motion of Hon. Mr. Ring, the debate was adjourned to Wednesday, the 23rd. 132 Confederation Debate. Wednesday, 23rd March, 1S70. Hon. Mr. WOOD rose to resume the debate on Tariff, and said: — Mr. Chairman, in speak- ing to the motions now before the House, it will hardly be necessary for me to say that I think this question of Tariff the most important of all that have been introduced during this debate. My object is, as I have said, to reduce to the utmost, in the event of Confederation with Canada, the chance of difference with the Dominion ; my objection to Confederation being that, however much it may apparently and at first tend to confer upon the Colony material benefits, yet there is every fear of consequent reaction and disaffection. In dealing with the matter it will be necessary to see whether the subject of Tariff now before us will have the effect of raising a direct question and difference between this Colony and Canada. Tariff is not simply a mode of collecting taxes; it is a system with a double object. The object of obtaining revenue, and in the obtaining of that revenue the further object of promoting domestic and home industries by a just discrimination between the subject-matter on which taxation is levied. The question of Tariff directly tends to promote or depress domestic productions and domestic trade ; conse- quently, the chances of difference and reaction depend on whether our interests are identical with those of Canada, or whether there is a conflict. The intended future Dominion of Canada is obviously divided, so far as this question is concerned, into two parts, that which is to the east and that which is to the west of the Rocky Mountains — the Atlantic and Pacific portions of that Dominion ; and to these several divisions there appertain distinct and several industrial interests, agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial. Let us run through in our own minds our own, the Pacific, interests, so to say, — the interests, in fact, of this present Colony. First, we have the agricultural interests. This is a material interest, as I trust it always will be con- sidered in every Colony; it is an industry which a Government cannot w T ell avoid materially to assist. I don’t say “ protect,” but “ assist,” and this whether agricultural produce be a staple of the Colony or not. I may here remark that I use the word “ staple ” in what I understand to be the received acceptation of the word — produce, exportable produce, raised in a Colony with advantage and at a remunerative rate to the producer, and capable of being exchanged with advantage for the produce of other countries in the markets of the world. Our next material interests are our own staples, properly so-called as above defined — such, for instance, as the wool of Australia, gold anywhere, or fisheries, as in Newfoundland. Our particular staples are our fisheries, our forests, and our minerals, to say nothing of certain aptitudes for shipbuilding and the repairing of ships. Next, we must take trade and commerce ; our local and geographical position being such as to give us some advantage in the distribution of goods, and, as such, is to be regarded as an element of wealth and one of our material interests. Let us now turn to Canada. Canada has manufactures, but not by way of staples, because she cannot undersell the Old World in manufactured goods; but with a population of, I suppose, over three millions she can produce sufficient manufactures of certain descriptions for her own use. Then her staples are agriculture, produce, lumber, and a certain amount of minerals, and perhaps horns and tallow. Agricultural produce is a staple in Canada ; she exports it ; therefore it requires no protection ; it would be no good to impose a tariff upon it. In manufactures there is such a tariff as will slightly protect manufactures, as with us we give the same turn of the market to the farmer by a slight tariff on agricultural produce. Following the common law of self- interest, British Columbia is bound to protect her own interests, and Canada the same. Let us see whether or not there is a manifest tendency to protection in the Dominion Legislature. It has been stated in this debate that Canada is adverse to protection, that she wants to follow England and the Old World in the direction of free trade. I say that those who make the asser- tion must prove it. [“ Hear, hear,” from Mr. DeCosmos.] I say that my sources of information tend to show that it is untrue that Canada favours free trade; she desires to protect her own manufactures. Right or wrong as a political theory, new countries will bh found, as soon as manufactures are possible, desirous to protect their own native industries, whereas it suits old countries to have free trade. In England manufactured goods are in reality her staples. England can compete with the world in most classes of manufacturing goods, from her manifest advantages in having coal and iron in close proximity, moderately cheap labour, and established industries, to say nothing of the commercial energy of her people. Some of the writers say that America and many of the Colonies of Great Britain suffer from protection. I say that, suffer Confederation Debate. 133 or not suffer, they insist upon it. I say nothing now of my convictions. I think, however, that the theory of free trade goes too far. “ Free trade ” is quoted as if it were a golden rule. I believe that free trade is an exceedingly elastic idea ; there is no orthodoxy in it. It is not a law of physics, like the law of gravitation, or some abstruse and elaborate theory like Sturn’s problem, or the stability of the eccentricity of the planetary orbits, to which there is no exception. It is elastic, and suits one country and not another ; it suits old countries and not new ; it suits England for the reasons I have stated. Her manufactures are her staples. She can undersell the world. People may say that free trade is applicable equally to other places and to all classes of industries. As to this, I have my own opinions. But so far as this discussion is con- cerned, I deal with the world as I find it. New countries desire protection. Why? No matter why — they do desire it. Dealing with protection in a moderate way, I think it may be reasonably conceded that a moderate protection, in the way of customs duties at least, may be applied to staple productions and agriculture. But whether the opinion be sound or not, colonial experience shows us that this is the line of argument pursued and acted on. Taking it for granted, as admitted by some political writers of eminence, that we may reasonably protect staples until they can support themselves, let us see what legitimate protection may be afforded to existing interests in this Colony. Agriculture may be protected, or rather fostered, in numbers of ways — by facilities for the acquisition of land, by roads, by immigration of farm hands, by the admission of implements free, and by a moderate tariff on produce. Agriculture, it must be remembered, is not only the cultivation of the land ; it is bound up with local interests, and carries with it a local population attached to the soil. If you want population localized you must encourage agricultural interests. Besides this, it must not be lost sight of that it is a practical remedy against poverty. If a man has certain faculties for acquiring or being employed as a labourer on land, he need never go to the poor-house; it humanizes men. It is the duty of every politician to protect agricultural interests in a new country, to the best of his power. Now, with regard to staples : I say they may reasonably be protected and fostered in their infancy, because they are the real wealth of the nation. It is said that at first the wool interest of Australia was carried on at a loss ; and for a country like this, that can produce without limit, fish, lumber, and coals, to say nothing of gold, we must give all the facilities in our power to induce industry in these walks of life. Take the gold miner; We might give him his gold license cheap, and make the acquisition of claims easy ; provide him with roads and trails ; and in this way we might “ protect ” the miner and encourage mining interests. Fisheries — how are they to be protected? By the promotion of information as to markets for fish ; by pushing those markets ; by local knowledge of the haunts of fish ; by cheap implements, and by cheap salt. To promote the lumber interest, we might give cheap machiney, so far as we can, by admitting it free, and let persons acquire land easily. Shipwrights might also be legitimately protected and encouraged by making implements and materials cheap, and by giving encouragement to docks. Let us do everything to promote the interests of ships. Where there are such natural inlets as ours, with coal at hand, and facilities for the importation of iron and steel for building ships, we could build cheaper than anywhere on this coast ; not, of course, so cheaply as on the Clyde, but still we might attract some ship- builders. Now as to trade — export trade. This is surely an item, though possibly a small item, in our wealth ; yet still, if we export only to Puget Sound, we might encourage such commerce. It is an industry and a source of wealth ; it causes foreign ships to come, and causes an expendi- ture of money in our ports ; it adds to the number of merchants, drays, and labourers, and increases general business ; a vitality is given by it which makes it an element of wealth ; it seems to have been beneficial here, and certain it is that it is estimated in this Colony as a material interest. How is this export trade to be protected? Some say by free port, that is to say, no Customs duties ; others say : “ Reduce taxation to a minimum on goods in which there is a tangible export trade.” Within these limits of what we may call moderate protection, we may reasonably suppose the Colonists of British Columbia to be desirous to legislate; and suppose we desire to have implements of labour and machinery, and some goods cheap and free, and put ten per cent, on imported agricultural produce. This is the reverse of Canadian policy. As regards machinery, I believe the Canadian tariff gives fifteen per cent, on manu- factured machinery at least. There is nothing to prevent the Canadian tariff from being increased. Protection may run rampant in the Dominion. You have no guarantee. I say that in these fiscal questions we are at issue as affects some of our most important elements of 134 Confederation Debate. national wealth. There would be a conflict, not only between the tariffs of British Columbia and Canada, but between the protective policy of each Province. How is this cause of discon- tent and conflict of interest to be removed? Why, by a British Columbia tariff for British Columbia. This place has no commercial connection with Canada. Canada affords us no market. There is no frontier to cause a difficulty with Custom House Officers. Why not have different tariffs? In the event of reciprocity with the United States we might be compelled to sacrifice the farmer, but possibly he might be in a condition to support himself by produce for which we have some special aptitude. Assuredly we shall have discontent, or worse, if the tariff is made oppressive, if we have for it to suffer the extinction, or the disadvantage, of our own industries. I have said hastily, give us our own tariff and I am almost in favour of Con- federation. I think I must take that expression of opinion back. There are so many other matters, so many points of differences between us and Canada, that under any circumstances there would be a continual struggle with the other Provinces. But, however this may be, if you wish not to provoke and keep up a sore question, have a separate tariff. Give to Canada and Canadian interests a tariff framed to meet their wants, and give to British Columbia its own especial tariff. If the tariff of Canada is to rule, I fear it will never be altered, for the feeble voice of our eight members would never be listened to in the Parliament of Ottawa, and the Canadian tariff, framed for the support and maintenance of Canadian interests, would assuredly prevail. The Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER said: — Sir, after the very able abstract review of the whole question of tariff, customs, and taxation of the honourable gentleman who has just sat down, I will not add anything by way of dissertation. But I must recall the House to the practical consideration of the subject. I acknowledge the ability of the honourable and learned member, and quite agree with him that this is one of the most important matters connected with Confederation. Then why, it might be asked, was it not touched upon in the terms? Not because it has not been fully considered, but because the Organic Act puts it virtually out of the power of the Colony to prescribe what form of tariff we should have under Confed- eration. The scheme, as has been already pointed out by the Hon. Commissioner of Customs, is based on the transfer of the control of our Customs to Canada ; itherefore, it is not within our province, under the scheme submitted, to impose on the Dominion, or even to propose any special tariff for this Colony ; but this is a matter which is left open for the consideration of this Colony on its merits, and is left open, as the Hon. Member for Victoria has told you, for this Council to make suggestions as to what tariff may be desirable under Confederation. I take this opportunity to set right the impression which seems to prevail as to the liberty of Government Members upon this question. It is not left open to us to complicate the terms by inserting any condition as to make it in fact a sine qua non; but it is left open for this Council to suggest what tariff would be suitable for this Colony. The Hon. Mr. Wood has discussed this matter on its abstract merits, as if it Avas in our power to dictate to Canada AVhat tariff we should have; he has laid before this House very ably the pros and cons of tariff and free port. It is for us to consider Avhat tariff would best suit us in or out of Confederation ; but it is not alloAA r ed to us to prescribe to the Dominion what form of Customs duties they shall adopt in this Colony, or in this Province, as it will be. We have placed the control of the matter out of our hands. [No, no, — Hons. Helmcken and Wood.] Well, Sir, I belieA T e we have; I say that view is imposed upon us by the terms, and I think it is better that it should be so ; and for this reason : We, as being acquainted Avith the AA^ants of the place, are best able to' point out in what respect we need protection, and where our interests are likely to suffer from the tariff of the Eastern Provinces. But I believe, Sir, that there are those in the Dominion Avhose larger experience, and mature vie\A’S, will render them much better able than us to supply such remedy as will be most beneficial. I am perfectly Avilling to explain my views on the subject of tariff and free port in the abstract, and the GoA T ernment invite the freest discussion on the point, both as regards protection to agriculture and manufactures, and free port. But I believe it will be better for the Colony to leave the decision and the remedy for the evils to those who will have the care of this Province, as well as the Eastern Provinces. I think it will be to the interest of statesmen in the Dominion to treat this Colony A\ T ell. Instead of feeling any A\^ant of confidence in those statesmen, I feel sure that every possible measure to promote the interests of this Colony will be well considered. They are in a better position to decide what will be most beneficial to this Colony, even in regard to tariff. I would rather hear Confederation Debate. 135 more opinions expressed before I offer a suggestion. It is my intention to offer a resolution in general terms so as to suggest to the Dominion Government that our agricultural interests must be protected, and that certain things are required, and to ask the Dominion for such special provisions in regard to tariff as we think we require. We are not in a position, after having endorsed the scheme of the Government, and after having handed over the sole control of the Customs to Canada, to prescribe what tariff we shall have, or to impose conditions as to our local tariff. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — Mr. Chairman, while I consider the question of tariff one of very great importance, it does not appear to me that it necessarily forms any part of the terms. It is, in my opinion, futile to imagine that we shall obtain power, under Confederation, to frame and regulate our own tariff. The Customs tariff is essentially a Federal measure, and the Dominion Government cannot very well permit a Province to make its own tariff. To do so would, in my opinion, be to admit a principle which would ultimately break up the whole Con- federation. If such a concession were made to British Columbia every other Province in the Dominion would forthwith clamour for it. The Dominion tariff is of necessity a Federal matter, to be dealt with by the Federal Parliament, and it is unreasonable to expect that such an exception will be made in our favour. The Customs tariff is the main source of Federal revenue ; and if any Province were permitted to tinker with it, the Federal revenue would, indeed, be precarious. History does not encourage us to hope for such a powder. Taking the United States which, in this respect, presents conditions not dissimilar to those of the Dominion, we find that the Customs tariff has ever been a Federal question. To no State or Territory has it been conceded to deal with its own tariff. If the strongest reasons had not existed for this, we should certainly have found exceptions made in favour of Pacific States and Territories. Hon. Members will recollect the bitter complaints made in earlier times on this Coast against Federal tariffs ; yet the people, while complaining, were never foolish enough to claim or expect the right to regulate their own tariff. They knew perfectly well that such a power was wholly incompatible with Union. It is as well that we should not cling to any such hope as that of being permitted to make and regulate our own tariff under Confederation. I quite concur with the Hon. the Chief Commissioner in the view that, notwithstanding the difference in existing conditions on this side of the continent, and on the Atlantic side of it. there are many questions, even of tariff, which would be more successfully dealt with at Ottawa, and that our repre- sentatives would be listened to, and would have their due weight upon such questions. Probably through their influence the tariff would, in some respects, be made more conformable to our circumstances and interests ; but the Dominion tariff must be altered and maintained by the Federal Parliament, and not by any Provincial authority. We occupy a very exceptional position, and shall do so for years, in regard to such questions, and this might justify us in asserting that the tariff of Canada, as a whole, is not applicable to British Columbia at present. But, Sir, permit me to say that this question, like most others, has two sides to it, and has not been approached with that fairness and candour which its great importance demands. We are very apt to estimate protection above its real value — to forget the price w r e pay for it. Even our farmers sometimes pay more for protection than it is in reality worth to them. Under free trade the products of this part of the Colony commanded a much more ready market, and higher prices, than they do now after three years of protection. I am willing to admit that a few farmers have thriven, partly, perhaps, on protection, but partly, too, I am apt to think, at the expense of other classes and other interests in the Colony. Det us remember that protec- tion is not an unmixed good, and that it sometimes costs more than it is really worth. It should also be remembered that the importance of protection is somewhat localized in its application. Nature has given ample protection to the interior of the Colony ; and it is, in reality, only on this Island and the Lower Fraser that artificial protection can be desirable. I venture to think that there is a great future before Vancouver Island, but I do not believe that it will ever owe its greatness to agricultural development. I believe that its commercial, maritime, mineral, and manufacturing industries will far outweigh its farming interests, and I do not think, therefore, that we would be justified in refusing Confederation upon fair and equitable terms, simply because we could not have power to regulate the Customs tariff. I regret that I am unable to agree with any one of the recommendations now before the Committee. The wisest course, in my opinion, will be to ask the Dominion Government to withhold the applica- tion of the Federal tariff of Customs to British Columbia for a fixed period, say, until railway 136 Confederation Debate. communication shall have been established through the Dominion to the Pacific. Until that takes place British Columbia must continue to occupy a position so isolated, and so exceptional, as to render the general tariff, however well adapted to the Provinces to the eastward of the Rocky Mountains, scarcely suited to us. But with the opening of continuous railway com- munication these exceptional conditions will, for the most part, disappear. Look, for instance, at California. What a complete revolution the railway has wrought in the condition of that State. The moment the railway was opened, California was no longer separated from the great commercial centres of the Eastern States by thousands of miles of sage-bush and desert. It was practically set down alongside of them; or, to use the words of another, time and space were annihilated, and California became, for the first time, a fitting subject of a common tariff framed at Washington, and enforced throughout the widespreading Union. Similar results will be realized in our own case. Upon the opening of the Canadian Pacific Railway British Columbia will practically be set dowm alongside of the Atlantic Provinces. We gqt over all constitutional difficulties by approaching the subject in this way. I do not say that the Dominion Government will assent to the proposition to postpone the application of their tariff to this Colony until railway communication shall have been established ; but we will approach them with a much greater show of reason and success in this way than in the other. I shall, therefore, propose an amendment, or a recommendation, asking that the Customs tariff of the Dominion be not extended over the Colony of British Columbia until railway communication therewith shall have been established. Should this be agreed to on the part of the Canadian Government, it would then become our duty, upon entering the Dominion, to remodel our tariff with a view to protecting local industries on the one hand, and building up our commercial and maritime interests on the other. Canada might, possibly, sacrifice a little revenue in the first instance, but it would come back to her a hundred fold in the greatly enlarged prosperity certain to follow. In this way, also, would be presented a living recognition of the necessity for railway communication, if not an incentive for the speedy consummation of that great desideratum. The course which I propose will more fully meet the local necessities of the country, while it will be more acceptable to the people, and, I feel assured, more likely to meet with the concurrence of the authorities at Ottawa. It possesses the advantage of accomplishing more good than can possibly be attained in the way proposed either by the Hon. Member for Victoria District, or that proposed by another Hon. Member, and, at the same time, of steering clear of constitutional difficulties. Hon. Me. DeCOSMOS — S ir, we have heard some very good and eloquent speeches. I intend to say a few words, and will begin with first principles. When the Confederation Delegates first met, they proposed to adopt a tariff similar to that of the United States ; that the Federal Government alone should have the right to impose customs duties ; that there should be no sub- sidies, and that each Province should raise its own revenue by direct taxation ; but it was found that Local Governments were not favourable to direct taxation. At the Conference at West- minster it was at first proposed to give local legislatures power to make laws and impose direct taxation, but when the Organic Act was prepared that part was dropped out. I have desired to harmonize with the Organic Act. Whatever we may do we should harmonize with the Organic Act; by so doing we shall meet with less objection at Ottawa. In looking at this question I may come to the conclusion that there is a possibility for the Local Government to raise taxes, but if it was referred to the Privy Council they might say it clashed. I will illustrate my meaning : I think the Legislature of Ontario voted an additional sum to one of the Judges ; the Privy Council said it was unconstitutional to do so. So it might be if the Local Government imposed a tax upon foreign produce and manufactures. But we must not clash with the Dominion Government. In case the Dominion enacted customs laws lower than our own, we would have the privilege to put direct taxes on those articles so as to give protection to them. Turning to the Year Book, I find that in New Brunswick the export dues on lumber amounts to $70,000. This is an export revenue for a source of revenue. If the Government of New Brunswick was able to except this item from the operation of the Dominion tariff, why should we not be able to get the same sort of difference? The Canadian Revenue will not suffer; every article will have to pay the Canadian tariff, and Canada will benefit by any prosperity that we enjoy. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — For how long do you propose to suspend the operation of the Dominion tariff? Confederation Debate. 137 Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I have said indefinitely — possibly for ten or twelve years. We may have the Railway completed by that time. The Hon. Mr. Wood put the question properly. The tariff is a thing that is changeable — it rises and falls. Suppose that Canada has to raise six millions for a guarantee for the Railway, they might have to raise the tariff. I think the tariff will probably rise for a long time. But this is aside the issue. My object in making this propo- sition is to prevent clashing between our Local Government and the Dominion. I include produce in my recommendation, — which means stock, cereals, and vegetables. If a provision of that sort were added we would be in a position to get a certain degree of protection, and the largest interest, that is the agricultural interest, would be satisfied. But I maintain that beyond this we ought to protect certain rude manufactures ; and in going into the Dominion we should go with as little friction as possible ; there must be some friction, but we must keep things as smooth as possible. There will be, as I have said before, a revolution in labour and value. Now, we do not want too much protection. Let our agricultural interests be satisfied, and if those engaged in rude manufactures are protected the people will be satisfied. There are also a class engaged in trade who believe in protection ; you will find them the agricultural interest, the manufacturing interest, and believers in protection, who will form a strong band of opponents to Confederation. Take away this subject of friction and you have the whole thing easier. If they are not con- sidered there will be opposition before Confederation, and more after. If Hon. Members desire to keep up a feeling of loyalty towards Canada after Confederation, they will protect these interests. With respect to the Hon. Member for New Westminster, his argument is no stronger than his weakest point, which is — [Hon. Dr. Helmcken — His resolution]. Well, perhaps this is the weak point. He admits the whole point. 1 do not intend to follow the Hon. Member. I ask the Hon. Members to consider this question so as to consider industries and manufactures, so that the union may be lasting. I hope both sides will unite heartily in shaping our institutions with this end in view. Hon. Mr. RING — Mr. Chairman, I only desire to drop a few hints. I say that the Organic Act is wholly inapplicable to this Colony. Does the Hon. Member for New Westminster mean to hand us over under this Organic Act to swell the coffers of the Dominion? I hail any approach to free trade ; I believe in it ; free trade should have as free a course as the wind. Now, Sir, with regard to what has been said about protection to commerce; there are natural and artificial protections. I am for protecting the farmer by natural protections. Any attempt to shut out the surplus produce of another country must fail. The attempt to protect farmers by imposing a tax on flour and such articles, is a mistake. Any protection beyond harbour and pilot dues is a vicious system. Then, say others : free port is abolished, would you go back to direct taxation? I say, how can we ascertain what the people can pay by taxing income and property. The revenue would be smaller, but it is not fictitious. We must curtail expenditure, and having done so, I would abolish customs altogether as a source of revenue. I agree entirely with the proposition of the Hon. Member for New Westminster, that the tariff of the Dominion is a Federal matter. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the recommendation of the Hon. Member for Victoria District. I have listened carefully to the lofty arguments of the Government appointees on this question. It appears to me that the mistakes which the English generally make are attributable to their reading and studying great English writers too much, instead of considering what is practically applicable to a new country. Old countries are, in this respect, very different to new. Free trade may suit England and other old countries, whilst it may act very perniciously in a new one. Even in old countries a large proportion of the people whom free trade is calculated to benefit are against it. But in new countries protection is absolutely necessary. It is said by some Hon. gentlemen that the farming interests in the upper country needed no greater protection than nature had given them. I can mention an instance to the contrary. Flour was imported last year from California and sold in Cariboo at prices with which the upper country farmers could not compete. There ought to be some way of protecting the upper country farmers without clashing with the interests of the Dominion. I think it but just and right to protect the farmers above all other interests. I look upon this question as next to Responsible Government, and that I regard as the most important question in the Resolutions which are before the Council ; all others sink into insignificance besides these two conditions. 138 Confederation Debate. The Hon. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS— Notwithstanding that the Local Legislature after Confederation may not have a right to frame its own tariff, what we hope is, that the Canadian Parliament will deem it desirable, for their own interests, that a special tariff should be framed for this part of the Dominion. There is no law against this. It would not be a differential duty; it cannot be objected to on this ground. Differential duties are where the same articles from two different countries are charged differently. If the Canadian tariff was applied here taxation would be lessened. We must not lose sight of that fact. It would prob- ably be lessened to the extent of $100,000 a year. I have estimated the difference upon one quarter’s revenue, and I believe the difference to be at least $20,000 for the quarter. For all that, I think the tariff should be changed. A special tariff is required. I mentioned yesterday horses and cattle. I think the $15 on a horse and $10 on cattle would be a great hardship on this Colony ; it would amount to a prohibition. Last year 1,700 head of cattle were imported into this city ; are we prepared for the difference that the Canadian tariff would piake in this item? I think this large duty would be most objectionable. With a tariff made especially to protect the farmers, over 40,000 pounds of butter were last year imported. If the Canadian tariff of four cents a pound were applied, I do not know that much more could come in. I think that the farmers must have sold all they had. I think that advocates of protection do not apply the principles of protection to farmers of the upper country, but those of Vancouver Island. The farmers will feel the weight of the protecting tariff without receiving any of its benefits. They will not feel the difference in the duty upon butter. I think that there will be a Treaty of Reciprocity between the United States and Canada, and I hope this Colony will participate in it. It would be a great advantage. [Hear, hear.] I think the opening of the United States' markets to our lumber would more than counterbalance the loss of protection on produce. I don’t care for coal ; they take as much as we can supply. I would suggest that this Council should send forward to Government a recommendation that we believe a special tariff desirable, nay, almost imperative. I do not believe that our eight members in the House of Commons, and four in the Senate, of Ottawa, will have no weight ; if so, they had better come back. What in God’s name 'good will they do? I think the question may be safely left to the Canadian Government and our representatives at Ottawa. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — With a view of bringing this to a vote, I will propose this recom- mendation : “ That, in the opinion of this Council, it is highly desirable that the agricultural, horticultural, and dairy interests of British Columbia be protected.” And I do this in order to divide the question into two parts. One Hon. Member wants the power of suiting the tariff to our convenience; and more than one Hon. Member has said that Confederation must come. I deny it. There is no necessity that it should come now. If the people vote against Confedera- tion when the terms come before them, His Excellency will inform Her Majesty’s Government that the people don’t want it. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL— We have always said so. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I have so stated fifty times already. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I am glad it is so understood. The Hon. gentlemen must be very careful to make the terms suit ; for if the terms don’t suit the people we shall not have Con- federation. I say that the people have been seriously told that Confederation was to be the destiny of this Colony. [“No, no,” from Messrs. DeCosmos and Barnard.] Efforts have been made to impress on the Colony that we must have Confederation on any terms. I do not cpn- sider that it is necessary for us to go in under the Organic Act. We did not expect to do it. To the Hon. Collector of Customs I would say, that much stress is laid upon the fact that under the Canadian tariff the people will save $100,000 ; that is, because the customs lose, the people save. I say this does not follow. Canadian goods don’t come here now because they cannot compete. The only reason they will be used is, they will come in free, whilst others pay tariff. Possibly then the difference in price between Canadian goods and our goods may be very little ; the Government may lose, but the people won’t gain. Do you understand that? [“ No, no,” from Hamley and others.] People may have to pay as much for Canadian goods as for American goods now. Hon. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS — American goods would come in less the duty now paid. Don’t you see? Hon. Mr. WOOD — The difference of transport would prevent Canadian manufactures from coming here cheaper. Confederation Debate. 139 Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I say the tariff would be almost the same on these American goods then as now. I grant there will be a loss on agricultural produce. Hon. gentlemen say they may send agricultural produce. Butter, I believe, comes from cows ; it costs money to buy a cow ; there is the difference between raising agricultural produce and cattle. If butter could be grown from the ground I don’t suppose that forty tons would have been imported. Farmers are poor ; they have not money to buy stock. Keep up protection and they will have money bye and bye to purchase cattle. Experience of the agriculturalists in this Colony has taught me that farmers with capital come out at the wrong end of the stick, whilst those who have gone in to work for themselves have made money. I know most of the farmers on Vancouver Island, and I find that those who began with nothing are doing well. The Hon. Collector of Customs said that farmers in the upper country don’t require a tariff. I went into that question yesterday. I think they will want it. Hons. CARRALL and BARNARD — Prices are getting too high now. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — It is exceeding easy and pleasant for us who want to eat to say prices are too high, but let any man go to work on a farm and he will have experience of the difficulties. The Hon. Collector of Customs says a treaty of reciprocity would be of great benefit, and that we might give up the farming interests of this Colony for it. Now, Sir, this Council said last year, almost unanimously, that agricultural interests must be protected. Why should Hon. Members think that we should require anything different under Confederation? The Plon. Member for Victoria District almost led me the way in saying that irritation would arise which would lead to a desire for annexation if the agricultural interests were not protected. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — The interests we want to protect would be annihilated under Confederation. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I say what we want now is what we want under Confederation. Now, Sir, what have we been trying for? What has been our policy? Why, to protect industry. I am told that the Dominion Government will not admit any alteration in our tariff ; and the example of the United States is cited. It has been said that California wanted to alter her tariff, and was not allowed to do so. I say, in reply, that California was one and a part of the United States. British Columbia is not yet Confederated, so we are still in a position to make terms. California would have made terms if she could, but could not ; and it was for a time a question whether she should not secede. It was only large subsidies and steam communication that kept California in the Union. There is this peculiarity in the Organic Act, section 95 enables Canada to make different laws as to agriculture in each different Province. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I don’t think that section applies to the tariff; it does not sound like it. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — Perhaps it does not, but I say that anything advantageous to the Colony may be enacted by the Local Government. We can ask for a separate tariff, and Canada has power to make different laws as to agriculture in each Province. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — No, that is a mistake. The 95th section weakens the Hon. Member’s argument. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I say it strengthens my argument. It does not mean merely that people may clean thistles out of their land. The simple issue is : Shall agricultural interests be protected or not? It is quite possible that those who regulate the treaty, when brought into contact with Canadian statesmen, may devise some means whereby this result may be effected. I do not mean to give up to Canadian statesmen that they know more than ourselves about our local affairs ; but I do think we may utilize their experience. I do not think that people, when they know that Confederation will not be forced upon them, will accept Confederation. The question for the farmers will be: Shall agriculture be protected or not? I ask again, is agriculture protected by the resolution or not? Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It is not a sine qua non. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I think the idea to take a vote on protection to agriculture a good one, and I would rather that the resolution stopped there. Then I would propose a further resolution, pointing out the difficulties and ills we labour under. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I accept that alteration. We shall by it procure an expression of the opinion of the Council upon this point. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I go further than that resolution. I stand here as a protectionist, and I want to see the manufacturing interests protected as well as the agricultural interests. 140 Confederation Debate. Protection will be a sine qua non with my constituents. If the Hon. senior Member for Victoria will divide the question into agricultural interests, manufacturing interests, and trade, I will withdraw my recommendation. I say that we want this question settled before Confederation. As for reciprocity, it has, in my opinion, to be based on existing industry. The most important treaty of reciprocity was between England and Portugal, under which English goods were admitted into Portugal and wines into England. Reciprocity to be successful must be based on existing industries. If we enter into a treaty of reciprocity with the United States, we must build up our industries, such as coal. I take it that what our coal has to contend with is foreign and native coal in the San Francisco and Portland markets. Unless there is an extended market for coal it is impossible to increase the trade in it. Reciprocity would destroy the most per- manent interests ; that, for instance, of agriculture, and we would gain nothing by it. I say if Canada thinks proper to negotiate a treaty of reciprocity with the United States, we should be at liberty to negotiate a separate treaty, or to insert special clauses in the treaty. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — Let us clear the ground by getting the Chairman to put this resolution as an abstract proposition. The Chairman then read the resolution as an abstract proposition for the vote of the Council : — • “ That in the opinion of this Council it is necessary that the agricultural, horticultural, and “ dairy interests of British Columbia be protected.” Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to vote for that proposition, but I do not go quite to the extent of beliving it necessary, although I think it very desirable. I don’t think it of such importance as the Hon. Members for Victoria City and District, as to make it a vital question or a sine qua non of Confederation. I think it is desirable to continue protection under Confederation, and I do not see why we cannot. I think that the Dominion Government may, perhaps, be better able to provide the ways and means to effect that object than ourselves. We may not be able to provide a remedy, but we may advise. The protection that we ask for only partially affects the community. It is patent that it only affects Vancouver Island and the Lower Fraser at this time. [“No, no,” from Mr. DeCosmos.] I say that the farmers of the Interior have a geographical protection. The time is so distant when agricultural produce can come into the upper parts of British Columbia, or when the produce of the Upper Country can come into competition with the produce of the Island and of the Lower Fraser in these markets, without feeling the cost of transport as equivalent to a protective duty, that before that time arrives the tariff may be amended again and again. With regard to what has been said about the closer union with a foreign country. I said, 'and I repeat it, that if the interests of the farmers would be prejudiced under Confederation, they would be utterly annihilated under Annexation. I believe that if we were brought under the Dominion tariff they would be injured. I did not say that the Dominion would not give us separate tariff regulations. I think they will do so, but I say we have put ourselves out of a position to prescribe. We have put before them a scheme, and we have left the tariff out of the scheme. We can now point out that we want protection, and leave it for the Dominion Government to point out the means. We have virtually put it out of our hands to dictate the means approved by this Council. I cannot agree in thinking that clause 91 leaves us free to impose our own tariff. I say we have made the British North America Act apply under the scheme which we have adopted under clause 16. Hon. Mr. RING — I differ from that. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — That is the whole strength of my argument. We have virtually given up the power over the tariff to Canada, but it is open to us, and the Council are invited to state what is wanted. It must be remembered that those terms are only memor- anda for Confederation. Different terms may be sent back, and it will be left for the new Council to decide upon them ; and I, for one, am ready to suggest to the Canadian Government that we should have protection, although there are objections, for if you protect one interest another must suffer. We pay for the protection of produce in the increased price of the articles we consume. I go to the length of thinking it desirable to recommend the Canadian Government to protect our agricultural interests. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I will ask the honourable mover of this recommendation whether he insists on the word “ necessary”? Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I say this is one of those things that under Confederation will be necessary. Confederation Debate. 141 Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER— Will the Hon. Member alter the word “necessary” to “ very desirable ”? Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — If yon retain that word I must vote against it. Hon. Dr. HELMCIvEN — I retain the word. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — “ Highly desirable ” would suit my views better. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I think the word ought to be retained. Hon. Mr. ALSTON — I believe all restrictions are false in principle, and Governments have no right to travel out of their path to dictate principles. It has rightly been said that protection to agriculture is at the expense of other things, and it is simply ridiculous to say that agricul- tural interests are the only interests in the Colony. Vancouver Island cannot be looked upon as an agricultural country. I would vote for protection temporarily, but as soon as good roads are made the farmer needs no protection; and, although free trade may be injurious to one interest, I believe it to be the correct principle. It strikes me that the Organic Act is a treaty of partnership between four countries, and where the terms are silent we can alter the Organic Act. If it be that we may make the law^s, Canada still takes the revenue ; and unless the resolution is altered I cannot vote for it. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I may clear the ground if I make a suggestion. I think it would be better to take the subjects separately, and then I would embody the whole matter in one Resolution to His Excellency. Hon. Mr. WOOD — It would be desirable to have as unanimous a vote as possible. The Hon. Chief Commissioner and the Hon. Mr. Alston have said that a tax on produce would be likely to prove injurious. I say that protection is only to be extended until our agriculturalists can compete with the farmers on the opposite shore. If reciprocity eventually arise, I do not pledge myself to support protection. It may be necessary then to make some compensation to farmers, but I cannot say I would support it. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — W e want a positive guarantee for protection. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER moved an amendment to change the w T ord “necessary” to “ highly desirable.” The recommendation, as amended, was carried. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS moved a Resolution, “ That it is highly desirable that manufactured articles should be protected.” Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I would ask the Hon. Member to define “manufactured articles.” Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I would name boots and shoes. . Now, in event of any reciprocity treaty, 1 should like to see our interests protected. A reciprocity treaty may exert a stimulating influence for a time, or it may be detrimental. We have confectionery and many other things; for instance, there is a proposition to erect a woollen manufactory. Furniture, at present, all comes from the United States. Our cabinet-makers could manufacture it here if they could import the raw material free. The same could be said of wheehvrights. If we are to have large public works we must have these interests protected. Harness may be brought in cheap under reciprocity ; leather and Soap likewise. I start out on this principle : if we can keep our manufactures at home we are doing our duty. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — The Canadian tariff applies to all the articles mentioned by the Hon. gentleman. I am mystified in regard to this protection. He says he wants protection for leather, and boots, and harness. Twenty per cent, is our tariff on waggons, and yet no class of waggons, such as is wanted, can be made here. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — W e shall never have producing manufacturers if we do not protect them. With regard to waggon building : parties now engaged in the business were about to leave until the tariff was introduced. Competition lowers the price of home-manufactured articles. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I shall support this Resolution ; the Canadian tariff to some measure meets it. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I shall ask to have the words altered. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — Presently we shall have to protect British Columbian interests against Canadian interests. If the farmer and boot-maker are protected, other local manufac- tures must be protected also. Where you do not produce things admit them free. It is our duty to protect our own interests. 142 Confederation Debate. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — And turn people out of the country. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — You keep them in. You send out $100,000 a quarter for goods, which ought to be spent here. That $100,000 ought to be invested in mines and in building up the country. Now, you want this country to be a garden and a manufactory. The people must do it, and it is the only way in which they can do it. Put your productions into competition with the whole world and you will ruin the producers throughout the whole Colony. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — Another question is, up to what point are you to protect? What is the use of protecting produce if you protect colonists out of the country? I put this as an abstract proposition. There is no more moot point than the difference between free trade and protection. I see the Canadian tariff protects these things, and I don’t feel inclined to ask for more. Under the Canadian tariff agricultural products are almost free, but manufactures are protected. I don’t intend to assume that the tariff will be taken off — that protection is to be taken away from manufacturers, for, if so, it will be against the arguments of the members from British Columbia. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — Some members are growing protection mad. They want to build a wall around the Colony and keep out the entire world. You must come down to first principles. When honourable members talk about protection, I suppose we intend to protect that which we can produce. Are we to protect so as to force people into branches of industry unthought of before? Some honourable members have run to the extent of protecting population out of the Colony; another favours protection in order to keep prices low, and thus to secure our population. I maintain that protection has run too far, and the agriculturists have not benefited by it. [“No, no” — Mr. DeCosmos.] They tell me that the demand is so small that prices are less. I am not in favour of withdrawing protection from farmers, but let us see that it does not go too far. Hon. Mr. WOOD — Might I not turn the tables by judging some honourable members are free trade mad. No one ever dreamt of such high taxation. So far from sweeping off popula- tion we secure it; and in England free trade is intended to benefit the manufacturer, and it does so. It struck a blow at agriculture, and if they had not gone into raising and spending more money it would have been an utter failure. High price for corn is now unknown, but free trade by way of dogma is absurd. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — T here is a distinction between a tariff for protection and a prohibi- tory tariff. The Hon. Collector of Customs will set me right, if I am mistaken, but I believe the importation of arms from foreign countries into a Colony is prohibited. Hon. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS — Prohibited, I believe, altogether. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — P recisely so ; that the defence of the Colony may never depend on foreign aid. The Hon. Chief Commissioner asked the extent of the protection. I say during the infancy of the Colony. When we are able to run alone, protection will be necessary. With regard to farmers wanting free trade, I deny it emphatically. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — No doubt the Canadian Government will like this amendment of the tariff. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I shall vote against it because it says it is expedient to arrange it in the terms. If the Hon. Member alters the wording it would then become on the same footing as the last recommendation. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS altered the wording accordingly, and on vote the motion was lost. The motion of Hon. Dr. Helmcken was put and carried. Thursday, 24th March, 1870. On the House going into Committee of the Whole on the Confederation Resolution, Mr. DeCOSMOS moved the following resolution : — “ That in the opinion of this Council it is expedient, in order to foster commerce, to admit, duty free, into this Colony or some portions thereof, certain articles of foreign merchandise not produced in the Dominion or this Colony, and that provision for the admission of the same be made in the terms of Union with Canada.” In reply to a question the Hon. mover said it would be impossible to name all the articles ; but a few of them might be instanced, such as tropical fruits, silks, and English dry Confederation Debate. 14: goods ; he thought this the proper time to bring these matters to the attention of the Dominion Government, believing that they would listen to them. Some discussion ensued as to the mode in which the different recommendations and resolutions were to be taken up. The Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL called Hon. Members’ attention to the fact, that it had been agreed by the House that an expression of opinion on these general principles, namely, as to the protection of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, should be taken, and that, as had been very properly suggested by the Member for Victoria District, a general resolution should be framed on these abstract views. Hon. Me. ROBSON — I shall offer an amendment, because I think the question of free port and protection should not be dealt with together. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — The proposition of the Hon. Member for Victoria District is as to what shall be admitted free; the Hon. Member for New Westminster proposes to suspend the whole tariff. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I stated one reason why I thought it not desirable to put the two together. You cannot get the control of the tariff. I say we want free trade in certain articles, and I say we must have the tariff entirely re-modelled as to these articles. My difficulty is that we were last evening discussing protection, and how far we should have the power to deal with it. I moved an amendment which was, I think, the only constitutional way of dealing with the question, and in answering certain propositions of Hon. gentlemen yesterday, I endeavoured to deal with protection, per se. I listened with interest to what fell from the Hon. Commissioner of Customs, and I do not like to set my opinion against his on matters of this kind, on which I know he is an authority, especially when I find him backed by the Hon. Attorney-General and Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works. I instanced the United States of America, and said that they are a living instance of non-separation of tariff. The Hon. Commissioner of Customs did not go so far as to say we could frame a tariff for ourselves, but that the Dominion Govern- ment would frame it for us. Now, Sir, I say that we must not run away with any such idea. If we were allowed to have a different scheme of revenue, Newfoundland would ask the same ; New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and other Provinces would all ask for exceptional tariffs, and the Federal fiscal policy would be broken up and destroyed. Depend upon it we ought not to run away with such an idea. The Dominion Government cannot admit of exceptional or differential tariffs any more than the United States can do so. Some Hon. Members say that we are not under the Organic Act, and need not be under it, unless we choose ; that there is a distinction between the relations of the Provinces that were Confederated under the Act and those that may hereafter come in, and that we can change the Organic Act if we think proper. I admit that any Province not prepared to come in under the Organic Act can stay out. The Act is not binding on us now, but it will be if we go into the Dominion. I am surprised to hear some Hon. Members speaking lightly of a reciprocity treaty. Look at the single item of coal. We at present only send 18,000 tons per annum to San Francisco. I have no doubt that under a reciprocity treaty, we should supply them with 50,000 tons a year at least, to say nothing of anthracite coal. In the course of a few years, allowing time for trade to develop itself, this would bring in $900,000 or, say, one million dollars a year into the Colony. Mr. Chairman, we are now speaking of a single item, and that, I believe, not the largest, which would bring in one million a year, and that calculation is based upon the present consumption of coal in San Francisco, and the consumption will no doubt increase. In addition to this, look at the quantity of shipping, and the cheap commodities which these ships bring in, which could hardly be brought as a measure of commerce. There are objectors to reciprocity. No doubt it would be very nice if we could open the United States ports to our goods, and close our ports to their goods. But this would not be reciprocity. There is, in my opinion, only one answer to be given. I say, give the farmers good roads, and this will be protection for them. Now, Sir, what does the development of our coal interests mean? It means extension of labour, and circulation of money. Farmers have at once a full demand for their produce. Apply the same argument to lumber. Its development would cause more money to be expended in the Colony. Every ton of coal brought to the bank, and every tree cut down, means spending of money. There, then, is another field opened up for what farmers have to sell. Give the farmers this development and good roads, and they would soon find out that reciprocity would be like the handle of a jug, on, the side of British Columbia. Depend upon it we will come in under the reciprocity treaty, and the advantages will be so great on our side that it will hardly be reciprocity. Nothing can be more unfair than to suppose we are to have a free market in the United States and they have none here. 144 Confederation Debate. Hon. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS asked if Hon. Mr. Robson had any resolution to propose. Hon. Mr. ROBSON said that at present he was replying to remarks that had been made by other Hon. gentlemen. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the course that the Hon. gentleman was pursuing was embarrassing, and would tend to complicate the question before the House, and proceeded to correct a statement which he understood Hon. Mr. Robson to have made as to what had fallen from the Hon. Chief Commissioner, Hon. Mr. Hamley, and himself on a previous occasion as to the right to control tariff being in the Provinces after Union. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — A nyone w r ho knows the history of the United States knows that if any question of dealing with the tariff law in any manner other than Federal could arise, it would be in reference to groups of States instead of single States. I say, then, that we must consider this as a group of Provinces of the Dominion. Many years will probably not elapse before we see groups of States distinguished as Pacific and Atlantic, or East and West, and North and South, in the neighbouring Republic. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I rise to move a resolution. It is the same as that proposed at the Yale Convention by the Hon. Member for Victoria District, in 1S67. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN and ATTORNEY-GENERAL — What Convention? We know of no Convention. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I have a perfect right to allude to what took place at the little Parliament at Yale. I believe this to be the proper way to approach the subject. The resolution which I propose is as follows : — “ That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor recommending that the following may be included in the conditions of the proposed terms of Union with Canada : ‘ If at any time after the admission, the Legislature of British Columbia shall pass an Address to the Governor-General of Canada declaring that it is expedient to establish a free port on the Pacific in order to advance the interests of British commerce in the North Pacific, the Parliament of the Dominion to make provision for the establishment of the same.’ ” It is astonishing to find what a change has come over the Hon. Mr. DeCosmos since he changed his city seat for a rural seat. He is becoming less capable of taking a statesmanlike view of these things than he was two years ago. I think by providing that if the new Council shall, after due deliberation, find it desirable, that a free port shall be established in this Colony is, after all, the proper way. I cannot think that this House, with the small representative element that it has, should be asked to decide this point. I say that the tendency of the Canadian policy is in the direction of free trade. [No, no, from the Hon. Mr. DeCosmos. 1 I say it is, and there is a speech of Sir G. E. Cartier recently published, in which he says that the tendency of Canadian policy is towards free trade. Now, I believe, that a great British Empire is to be established on this Continent, — the Greater Britain; and I believe that all British manufactures will be admitted free. If Great Britain takes her true part in pushing forward this Empire, she will naturally expect some advantages ; she will naturally look for some immediate financial result. Every unproductive labourer in England is a tax upon the others ; but transfer them to the Dominion and they will become producers and consumers. I believe it to be of the first importance that there should be a free port here. By a free port I do not mean that everything should necessarily be admitted free. There is no reason why local industries, and especially agricultural interests, should not continue to enjoy substantial protection. I believe the Canadian Government will readily realize the advantages of the policy of having a free port on the Pacific. There could be no local jealousies growing out of it. The Provinces on the Atlantic could not object. Our free port would attract commerce and wealth to the nation which they could not possibly attract, and thus enrich the nation and reflexly benefit all. I maintain that while the larger advantages would be local, the general advantages would be very considerable. I was gratified in reading a leading article in the Ottawa Times, the organ of the Dominion Government, in which the theory of a free port for the Dominion on the Pacific is strongly and ably advocated; and this article forms a complete answer to those who allege that the Canadian statesmen would never listen to any such propo- sition. If it should be decided that a free port would conduce to the interest of the Province and, consequently, to the interest of the Dominion, why should not we have it? Why should we object? What more glorious idea can there be than that of a British Empire extending across the Continent, with its back to the North Pole, with its face looking Southward, I will not venture to say how far; with one foot planted on the Atlantic and the other on the Pacific, Confederation Debate. 145 stretching out one hand to Europe and the other to Asia, and inviting the commerce of both hemispheres to enter its wide open portals, free as the wind that fills the canvas. Depend upon it, Sir, if this is to be the true north-west passage, the gates must be thrown open. Let us not repel commerce, but woo it. I venture to think that the resolution which I have the honour to offer proposes to deal with the matter in the most statesmanlike way; and I trust it will com- mend itself to the judgment, and receive the support, of all parties in the House. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK, whilst believing that the establishment of a free port at Victoria might be beneficial to the interests of the Lower Fraser, did not think it would be for the general good of the Colony. In his opinion the agricultural interests wanted protection. For the present he must vote against the Hon. Member for New Westminster. He thought that such questions ought to be left to the Dominion Government. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — A fter the very, I will not say unusual, but unexpected, remarks in reference to myself, I must crave the indulgence of the House whilst I say a few words to set myself right. Sir, I had something to do with the Yale Convention, and I am not ashamed of my connection with it ; my political standard was unfurled then as it is to-day. When I first entered upon politics in this country I established a high political standard, which would take the measure of a political trickster as well as that of a statesman. There is nothing in the conduct of the hon. member for New Westminster either here or at Yale to entitle him to the name of statesman. I say, Sir, that I am as free as I was at Yale to vote for that clause, and if it can be got into the terms I will vote for it. I brought the question up at Yale because I knew that there was a party in Victoria favourable to free port, and I wished to see the question fought out after Confederation, not before. The Hon. gentleman was defeated ; he could not get the Yale Convention to endorse the retaining of the Assay Office at New Westminster, and he took his defeat very much to heart. [Hon. Mr. Robson — Untrue, untrue.] The Hon. Member for Yale came to me and said : — “ You concede this point as to the Assay Office and I will yield the free port. We don’t want Mr. Robson to leave.” That's how it came to be in the Yale resolu- tions. Since to this Colony I came, I have never swerved from protection. In the first article I wrote for a newspaper in this Colony the word “ protection ” occurs. I want to see the Canadian revenue laws extended here ; I want to see power in the Local Government to protect the indus- trial interests of the Colony. I would like to know who has changed the Hon. gentleman’s opinions. I spent my time and money in getting protection. I challenged a gentleman on the floor of this House to retire, and I did retire ; I hoisted the flag of protection and won. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — I wish to state that what the Hon. gentleman said was true, except that he mistook the Hon. Mr. Robson for Hon. Mr. Holbrook. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — We are here to remedy evils likely to occur from Confederation, evils which are admitted by every member of this Council. That there is an evil even the Hon. Member for New Westminster has admitted. [Hon. Mr. Robson — No.] The Hon. gentle- man makes his net' so wide that he slips through ; but he said in effect that the difficulty was irremediable, and to get out of it he proposes not general free trade, but free trade in certain special articles. If the Canadian Government can agree to one they can to the other. I believe that if we show the Canadian Government that the Canadian tariff would be an evil they will find means to remove the evil. I believe a tariff fair and suitable to this Colony will be made. I believe we have gone so far right ; we have resolved that our agriculture shall be protected. Now comes the question as to commerce. We want articles of commerce as cheap as possible : our trade is chiefly retail, nevertheless it is important, and should be fostered. I think that everything we can do to increase the population of this country is of importance. I therefore propose this resolution : — “ That in the opinion of this Council it is advisable that after Union foreign manufactured “ articles in which trade can be carried on with neighbouring countries shall be admitted into “ this Colony at a low nominal rate of duty, and generally the tariff should be made to suit “ the commercial condition of the Colony.” I think free trade in Vancouver Island would be beneficial with protection to agricultur- alists, but I do not think it desirable, except in a limited way. Does any one imagine that if free port was restored to Victoria her prosperity would return? In more early days, when she enjoyed free port, there were not the obstructions to free trade with the neighbouring country that there are at present. Now there are Custom House officers to prevent smuggling, and a great deal of illicit trade is checked. With regard to free trade: In former days we were far 10 146 Confederation Debate. more advanced than the people on the Sound ; to-day, on the Sound, trade has so far Increased as to be almost equally as good, and I am told you can buy goods almost as cheaply as in Victoria, so I do not believe free port would restore our pristine prosperity. Under free trade it is supposed that large stocks of goods will come by Panama, or by long sea route. But look at the altered condition of things resulting from the Pacific Railway, and the railway to Columbia River, and probably on to Puget Sound. Do you imagine anyone will send large stocks of goods to lie here? and will not people telegraph for whatever they may require, and bring them across the continent by railway? I say that the same prosperity and trade that we enjoyed before would not come back. We are told that when the railway is made Asiatic trade will come across, but I doubt the railway being made in our time, and, if it is, ships will go wherever the railway terminus is, and that will not be here. It would be an advan- tage to have some articles free, silks, trie tracs, &c. Make Victoria the Paris of the Coast and we may do something. And this brings me to the observation of my Hon. friend on my right, that more frequent steam communication with the Sound would be productive of much good to trade. What I want to say is that the persons going to negotiate these terms ought to be able to state that this Colony requires restrictions in the tariff. I do not intend to be factious, but I do intend to show to the Canadian Government what we consider best for this country, and that without certain terms we 'believe Confederation will be bad. What use is it to attempt to deceive Canada? She knows what is being done, and if not, there are those here who would tell her. It is our duty to show the Canadian Government that there are things we desire. Of what use is the country to Canada unless it is populated? She wants people, not terms. We must show what will be the advantages of Confederation. If the tariff of the Dominion must come here it will be unsuitable to us — an admitted evil. If this cannot be remedied, Confederation is likely to be put off for years. I merely mean to elicit the feeling of this House on the subject of whether we can take off certain duties. If commerce can be protected in the way we desire, as we shall see when the persons who go to arrange the terms come back, then it will be no use to oppose Confederation. If the evil is still to exist, then there will be opposition. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — I shall vote against the Resolution. With regard to free port, I do not say I am opposed to it or in favour of it; but I do say that the Canadians will say if we pass this Resolution, “ What kind of people are these that passed a Resolution yesterday in favour of protection, and to-day desire free port?” The Hon. Member for Victoria City proved forcibly, I will not say conclusively, that free port would not be beneficial. His reason- ing is consistent ; and it is eminently characteristic of the honourable gentleman. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I desire to explain the terms of my Resolution — the latter part. If the Canadian tariff rules our farmers are ruined. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — Vancouver Island can never be an agricultural country. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — Bring the Canadian tariff here and you take away protection and tax the farmers for all they consume. Hon. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS — A free port is an impossibility, unless the English Parliament repeal the Act of Union. This xYct enacts that, British Columbia tariff laws shall prevail. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I believe a free port could be carried on if you could wall in an acre or two of this city, and not do any injury to manufacturing interests, or any other interests. I mean to say that upon that acre people might expose their goods — make it one large bonded warehouse. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — We have heard of the pernicious effects in prospective of the Canadian tariff. I maintain that it will protect the principal, that is the pastoral, interests better than what is proposed by some honourable members. The admission of cereals free will be counter- balanced by the additional protection afforded to the farmers’ horses and cattle, and the cheaper rate for goods. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I wished to gather the opinion of the House before express- ing my opinion on this question. I regret much, and am sure that this House will join me in a feeling of regret, that my honourable colleague, the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, is, unfortunately, absent from his place on account of indisposition, for I am aware that this is a subject to which he has given much consideration, and I would have been glad that the House should have had the benefit of his opinion on this very serious question, for it is Confederation Debate. 147 impossible to approach the subject without feeling its vital importance; and I think it would tax our united will and energy to their utmost limits, if we had the power to frame a tariff which would be suitable; therefore, I see, wisely, in all the Resolutions a wide generality. Upon this question of tariff we must especially avoid attempting to commit the Dominion Government to any fixed principle. The tariff cannot be part of the terms, but it is, undoubt- edly, a matter of consideration to be urged on the Canadian Government. Though we have assented to the Organic Act, we have not shut ourselves out from going to the Dominion Parliament to ask for remedies which they can give to us, and to ask them to find a remedy winch will make Confederation acceptable to this Colony. Therefore, I think, with the Honour- able Chief Commissioner, that one general Resolution upon this subject, after dealing with the three separate Resolutions or abstract principles, may, with advantage, be passed by this House. I think also, with that honourable gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that Canadian statesmen who will have to deal with this matter, will do so with wisdom. They, in considering the terms when other Provinces have entered the Confederation, must have experienced some of these difficulties which now come to us for the first time. No doubt many honourable members of this House have given great consideration to this question, yet I think that Canadian experience will help us. Much has been said on free port — much for and against. My own tendencies, since first I had a seat on this floor, in another Assembly, have been in favour of free port. I voted for it then, but I feel that I am obliged to vote against it now. The Imperial Government will not sanction anything which is in effect a differential duty in the same tariff ; but this is distinct from the question of a separate tariff for British Columbia. Other considerations will naturally strike Canada, and I think if free port was made a sine qua non she would refuse Confederation altogether, as she would not like to run the risk of entering into difficulties and disputes of a fiscal character with her great and powerful neighbour, which might possibly arise out of smuggling. Another difficulty in dealing with this matter that we have to encounter is, that we have information that a reconstruction of the Canadian tariff is at present going on, and there is some chance of a reciprocity treaty being arranged, therefore we cannot put forward any fixed principles. The main objections of the Dominion to a separate tariff, it strikes me, will be found to be : first, that they are afraid of infringing principle ; and, second, the formation of a precedent for a special tariff, which might cause Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and other Provinces to ask for special tariffs to suit their par- ticular circumstances, and to avoid the inconvenience of possible hostile tariffs. There are certainly many plausible reasons to be found in favour of a special tariff for British Columbia. Such as the difficulty of communication, the want of either road or railway, and the security against smuggling into Canada. But the probability is, that protection to commerce would be secured by the reconstruction of the Canadian tariff, and I regard the framing of a tariff now which would apply satisfactorily to our altered circumstances, under such a thorough change as Confederation would bring, as a matter of impossibility. Formerly, when there was a free port at Victoria, it was always in danger, and the Hon. Senior Member for Victoria City, then the Speaker of the Vancouver Island House of Assembly, was always afraid of every little impost on stock or produce lest it should infringe upon the principle of free trade, and at last it was so loaded with dues and charges that before the Union the principle of free port was destroyed. But I see no reason why, when we are going into a partnership, we should not arrange the best terms we can ; and I think that the differences could be altered in favour of this Colony, and in favour of Confederation generally. We have no power ourselves; that is the reason this question is not brought up in the terms. We must see what effect Union will have on this Colony first; we must see how the thing works before we decide finally. At the same time, we must take care that we protect such important interests as agriculture and commerce from haste or injurious delay. I will, therefore, as soon as the terms are settled, propose a resolution which will meet this difficulty and give time to see what change, if any, the country may require. Ifi sending our resolutions to the Canadian Government, we must not suppose that we have exhausted the subject. Many points must arise when the Canadian Commissioners come here, or ours go there — if the matter take that turn ; but we should be careful not to overload the terms, lest we should endanger the cause of Confederation altogether. We must have some faith in the Dominion Government — in Canada and Canadian statesmen. We must not forget that their own interests would be ours. I say nothing with regard to the latter part of the resolution of the Hon. Member for Victoria 148 Confederation Debate. City, except that it does not accord with his usual statesmanlike views. I shall offer no opposition to the latter part of the resolution of the Hon. Member, but I cannot support the whole. If anyone will move an amendment to leave out the latter part, I will support it. Hon. Me. DeCOSMOS — W e have three propositions now before the House — my own, and those of the Hon. Members for Victoria and New Westminster. The former divides the subject. I think they would both act judiciously if they withdrew the question of free port. Hon. Dr. CARRALL moved an amendment to strike out the latter part of the resolution of the Hon. Member for Victoria. Hon. Mr. RING suggested that the amendment should be deferred. These amendments so qualify the general principles that I must decline voting for any one of them. Hon. Mr. WOOD — 'Sir, I do not intend to express my opinion on free trade or protection, but I intend to vote; and I think my Hon. friend (Mr. Ring) might consider that he is not pledged to any particular course by his vote. I give my vote in order that the question may be brought before the Canadian Government, and ultimately before the people of this Colony. Hon. Mr. RING — I have great respect for the opinion of the Hon. and learned gentleman; but the resolution of the Hon. Member for New Westminster pledges us to the Organic Act, which I decline to endorse. We are entitled to our own free port and to the regulation of our own tariff. Hon. Mr. ROBSON— I hope the Hon. Member will remain while I set him right. My resolution only asks that a Representative Council here, after due deliberation, shall have power to decide upon this question. I consider that the name of free port is attractive ; this, under the resolution of the Hon. Member for Victoria District, we should lose. We must not regard the Canadian tariff as entirely unprotective. It is wrong, it is untrue, to state that the Canadian tariff is such a great evil, and I maintain that it would not be an evil, but an actual good ; but that is no reason we should not seek to make it a greater good. The Clerk read the resolution of Hon. DeCosmos, the amendment of Hon. Robson, the amendment of Hon. Dr. Helmcken, and the amendment of Hon. Dr. Carrall. By the leave of the Committee, the amendment of the Hon. Mr. Robson was withdrawn, in order that it might be brought up as a substantive motion. On a division, the motion of Hon. Dr. Carrall was carried, and the original resolution of Mr. DeCosmos was lost. The Hon. Mr. Robson then moved his resolution, to which the Hon. Mr. Humphreys moved an amendment. Amendment and resolution were lost. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — Sir, I rise to move this resolution on Excise : — “That in the opinion of this Council, the duties of excise levied upon maltsters and “ brewers under the Excise Laws of Canada would be detrimental if made applicable to British “ Columbia, and that His Excellency be requested to take such steps as he may deem advisable “ for the interest of this Colony, and further to take care that no export duties shall be charged “ on spars exported from British Columbia.” And I would remark, in doing so, that excise, as levied under the Canadian system, is very heavy indeed; there is duty, licence, and excise. The result would be to the brewing interests, in all probability, total extinction; for on an increasing trade the duty would be so high as to check trade in this direction. The other part of the resolution is in respect to logs, the duty on which is $1 per thousand on saw-logs ; but whether a spar or a mast, it is regarded still as a log. Thus the Canadian tariff would seriously interfere with our industry, and inter- fere with getting out masts and spars. Hon. Dr. CARRALL— I think the Hon. and learned Member for Victoria City is under a misapprehension when he includes spars with logs. If “ logs ” refers simply to saw-logs, I cannot see that the spar business would be affected. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I must confess, Sir, that I do not see the object of this clause. I don’t think there is any need for alarm. I have lived for some years in Canada, and when I think of the Canadian statesmen, who will look at British Columbia without regard to party politics — such men, for instance, as Sir J. A. Macdonald, Sir Francis Hincks, Sir A. T. Galt, Mr. George Brown, and the various statesmen accustomed to deal with these things I feel confident that we are safe in their hands ; therefore, I hope that the Hon. and learned Member will not imagine that, in voting against this motion, we are voting against the interests he so properly wishes to protect. Confederation Debate. 149 Hon. Mr. RING — The Hon. Attorney-General seems to think that these honourable men may live forever. He forgets that in the progress of time other men will take the lead in public affairs. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — It is a most important question. The Canadian Government ought to know what we think of it. The brewing interest would disappear, and it is large in proportion to our population, and to ruin it would be doing an injury. I hope the Hon. Attorney-General will withdraw his opposition and let this recommendation go 'with the others to the Governor, that he may forward it with them to the Canadian Government. At the time the Organic Act was made it related to contiguous Provinces. The Hon. Attorney-General says they may not put it in force here for ten, twenty, or thirty years. Granted, but it may also be put in force immediately. I say, then, let the Canadian Government be made aware that the application of the excise laws to this Colony will be* detrimental to its interests. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — I think the Hon. Member loses sight of one fact. He is terribly afraid of the Canadian tariff, but he loses sight of the fact that barley comes in duty free. I believe the whole system will be carefully revised, and it is absurd to hamper the terms of the resolution for such a petty question. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — In reply, I think our duty in coming here is to protect the interests of the Colony. We ask the Dominion Government to consider these things. We do not insist on terms being inserted. I do not ask for this only ; I desire ito draw the attention of the Canadian Government to these interests that they may not be overlooked. As to these interests being petty and small, that is our misfortune ; but let us not lose sight of them for that reason. As for Americans coming here to cut down our logs, I say let them come. If I can alter my resolution to suit the Attorney-General, I will do it. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — If I thought the interests of the Colony would suffer, I would consent to bring the subject before the Canadian Government, but I think we have nothing to fear. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — If you ruin the brewing interest, you inflict much harm in other ways. Brewers consume one million pounds of barley yearly. This is 700 acres of land which must be cultivated. To ruin this will throw out of employment a large number of people and close up our breweries. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I see no objection to sending this up, but not to make it a sine qua non. I believe the Canadian Government will protect all these interests. Brewing is not of sufficient magnitude to kill Confederation. Hon. Mr. ROBSON— I must oppose if logs are left in. I think it may be our duty to protect spars and logs. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — Then I will strike out logs and leave spars. The Clerk then read Hon. Mr. Drake’s motion, as altered. Carried. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN— There are other things to be considered. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I think it is now competent for me to move the resolution proposed by the Hon. Chief Commissioner. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — Is it intended that this shall swamp all the others? Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — No ; it relates only to tariff :— “Resolved, That this Council respectfully represent to His Excellency the Governor that, “ in negotiating the terms of union of British Columbia with Canada, it is of the first import- “ ance to point out to the Government of the Dominion that the circumstances of this Colony “ are in many respects so different from those of the Eastern Provinces that the application of “ the present Canadian Tariff to this Colony, while reducing the aggregate burden of taxation, “would injuriously affect the agricultural and commercial interests of this community, and “ that it be therefore urgently impressed upon that Government that it is absolutely necessary “ to our wellbeing under Confederation that special rates of Customs duties and special “ Customs regulations be arranged for this Colony, in such manner as may be found practically “ most advisable, so as to secure, while our requirements in this respect remain as at present, “ an equal measure of protection to our agricultural products and of facility to commerce, as “ are provided under the existing British Columbia Tariff.” The resolution was carried unanimously. The original motion of the Hon. Mr. DeCosmos, on the Orders of the Day, was read, and by leave withdrawn. 150 Confederation Debate. Hon. Mr. Drake’s motion was also withdrawn. Hon. Mr. Holbrook’s motion was put and lost. Hon. Mr. Robson’s motion was put and lost. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS moved “ That in the consideration of the subsidies to be given by Canada to tbis Colony, due “weight shall be given to the advisability of abolishing the present road tolls on the Yale- “ Cariboo road, and also to make provision for funds to keep the same in repair.” I put this in consequence of the suggestions thrown out by the Hon. Chief Commissioner. I think these road tolls have done more towards making bankrupts than any over-trading. They are main trunk roads, and I think they ought to be kept up by the Dominion Government. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I am not aware that that is the result of a suggestion of the Hon. Chief Commissioner. I am aware of his views, and I believe he has doubts as to whether roads can be maintained by a Government so far removed as Canada. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — I would suggest that this be laid over till the Hon. Chief Commis- sioner be here. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — The Hon. Chief Commissioner would not object to any conclusion of the House on this matter. But I caution Hon. Members not, by the addition of these suggestions, so to overload the resolutions as to break down the whole of them. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — I move that the Committee rise and report progress, in order that the matter may be laid over until the Hon. Chief Commissioner is in his place. Committee rose and reported progress. Friday, March 25th, 1870. On Mr. Humphreys’ motion on roads being read, the Hon. Attorney-^General said : — I regret to say that my honourable colleague, the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, is still too much indisposed to attend to his place in this House. I would, therefore, suggest that the Honourable Member should postpone his notice until he is present. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — 1 have no objection to defer it, on the understanding that it comes up on Monday. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — On Monday, or this day, if the Committee get through with their other motions on Confederation. Hon. Mr, RING — I desire to introduce a motion with regard to free port, but I do not intend to inflict upon the House a speech. I move that His Excellency be respectfully requested to place in the terms a clause to restore to Victoria the system of free port antecedent to Confederation. The Honourable Member for New Westminster was indignant with me yester- day for not supporting his resolution. I only say that his proposition was hypercritical. I ask that we may have free port restored before Confederation. We have now the right to legislate for ourselves on this point. Hereafter we shall be at the mercy of the Canadian Parliament at Ottawa. I would make free port one of the conditions of Confederation ; but first restore free port. On the Clerk reading the first w T ords of the resolution, — Hon. Dr. CARRALL — I rise to a point of order. I say that this question has been already decided. CHAIRMAN — I think the Hon. Member for Nanaimo is not out of order on that point. The question of free port yesterday related to free port after Confederation. The resolution of the Hon. Member for Nanaimo is in reference to free port antecedent to Confederation. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — The Hon. Member is surely out of order, this Committee having met to consider Confederate resolutions. CHAIRMAN — I rule that the Hon. Mr. Ring is in order, as his resolution refers to the terms of Confederation now before this Committee. On the Hon. Mr. Ring’s motion being but to vote, it was lost. Confederation Debate. 151 Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — I have very great pleasure in bringing this resolution forward with reference to the Indian tribes. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I ask the indulgence of the Hon. Member whilst I interpose a few words. On a former occasion a very evil impression was introduced in the Indian mind on the occasion of Sir James Douglas’ retirement. I ask the Hon. gentleman to be cautious, for Indians do get information of what is going on. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — My motion is to ask for protection for them under the change of Government. The Indians number four to one white man, and they ought to be considered. They should receive protection. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — These are the words that do harm. I would ask the Hon. Magisterial Member for New Westminster to consider. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — I say they shall be protected. I speak of Indians of my own neighbourhood on the Lower Fraser. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I rise to a point of privilege. I think that the warning of the Hon. Attorney-General is necessary. This is the sort of discussion which does harm. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — D on’t report it. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — I do not view it in that way. I say that the Indians of the Lower Fraser are intelligent, good settlers. I ask that they receive the same protection under Confederation as now. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — I would ask what protection they have now? Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — They have protection in being allowed to occupy land, and they enjoy equally with white people the protection of the law, and I ask the House to keep them in the same position. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — If the Indians had no better protectors than the Hon. Magistrate from New Westminster, I should not envy them their protection. The Hon. gentle- man must have forgotten the directions of the Imperial Government to His Excellency the Governor, in Lord Granville’s despatch. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — The Hon. Mr. Holbrook has told you that he speaks in behalf of 40+000 Indians. I speak in the name of 65,000. I am inclined to think we should not pass this matter over entirely ; we ought to point out our desire that the Indians should be cared for. Now, the Canadian Indian policy has been characterized as good, even by American statesmen. Our own policy is not worth the name. I consider it to be a blot on the Govern- ment. I will, therefore, propose as an amendment the following : — “ That the Indian policy of Canada shall be extended to this Colony immediately upon its “ admission into the Dominion, and that the necessary agencies and appliances for an efficient “ administration of Indian affairs may be at once established.” The Canadian Government occupies the position of guardians to Indians. They are treated as minors. There is a perfect network of Indian Agents in Canada, and through them the Indians are made presents of agricultural implements, seeds, and stock. Now, if we let it go forth to the Indians that their interests are being considered, and that this will be greatly to their advantage, I say, by making the Indians feel all this, there will be less danger of exciting any unpleasant feeling among them. We should set the Indian mind at rest and let them feel that Confederation will be a greater boon to them than to the white population. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — I rise to state my intention of voting against the resolution and the amendment. We have the full assurance in Lord Granville’s despatch that the Indians must be protected. I do think the Hon. gentlemen are only heaping up resolutions trusting to overload the whole system. The Hon. Member for New Westminster has affirmed how good the Canadian system is. The goodness of that system is in itself sufficient to render the resolution needless. I shall, therefore, vote against it and the amendment. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — I must vote against the amendment. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — I disapprove of what both the Hon. Members stated. These •gentlemen know nothing of the question. I will show you why. Take away the Indians from New Westminster, Lillooet, Lytton, Clinton, and these towns would be nowhere. I say the Indians are not treated fairly by us, and all they want is fair dealing from the white popula- tion. At Lillooet I was told there were upwards of 16,000 ; and $17,000 gold dust was purchased from Indians. Take away this trade and the towns must sink. I say, send them out to reservations and you destroy trade; and if the Indians are driven out we had all best go too. 152 Confederation Debate. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — The Hon. Member for Lillooet says that the Canadian policy will ruin the country and the Indians. I say, then, to be consistent, he must move an amendment that it shall not apply. To say that the Canadian policy will ruin the country shows simply ignorance. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — I am convinced that the Hon. Attorney-General is right. Hon. Mr. ALSTON — I must support the Hon. Member for New Westminster. I say there is no Indian policy here, and I am sure that the Canadian policy is good. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I was induced to put an amendment because there is a resolution ; otherwise I would not have interfered. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — My esteemed colleague the Hon. Registrar-General says we have no Indian policy. I say our policy has been, let the Indians alone. [Hon. Mr. Alston — “ No, no ! ”] Hon. Mr. BARNARD — The reason I ask for the withdrawal of the resolution ■ is that we cannot keep back from the Indians anything that happens here, and it will have a bad effect. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — As these words may go forth, I wish to state on behalf of the Government that the care of the Indians will be the first care of the Imperial Government and of the Local Government. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — I do not apprehend any danger from any discussion in this House. Hon. Mr. ALSTON — I suggest the withdrawal of the resolution. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — I say that the Canadian policy has caused them to grow and prosper. I am at a loss to understand why Honourable Members should be afraid to trust to it. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — The Honourable Member for Cariboo seems to find it difficult to understand my position. I think it right to endeavour to get the best terms we can, and to point out difficulties. It is the duty of every man to do so. I am perfectly willing to sit here and make the best terms possible. When they come back from Canada it will be time enough for me to decide whether or not I shall support Confederation. I am now anti-Confederate, but I may become Confederate if the terms are good. I say if the Indians are to be stuck on Reservations there will be a disturbance. I think, Sir, that it will be well that there should be some opposition. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I wish to state I will withdraw my amendment if the Honourable Member will withdraw his motion. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — I cannot do so consistently with my duty. The amendment was withdrawn. The resolution of the Hon. Mr. Holbrook was lost by a vote of 20 to 1. Hon. Mr. ROBSON moved that an Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor, asking that Canada shall cause a Geological Survey of this Colony to be made, commencing within one year after Unioiff He said that a fund of $100,000 had been set apart by the Canadian Government for the specific object of carrying out a systematic Geological Survey; that sum to be spread over a period of five years. Canada had the good fortune to possess a very efficient Geological staff. The Red River country had received the first year’s survey under that arrangement, and would probably receive the second this year. British Columbia will possess a greater mineral interest than any other Province, and a thorough Geological Survey will be of the utmost importance to her, and reflexly to Canada, and it was not too much to expect such a survey to follow close upon Union. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I am sure no one can have the slightest objection to support a motion for a survey. I assure you it has not escaped the notice of the Government, but I regard it as a matter of certainty that British Columbia will come in for her share. I do not object to the consideration of the question between this Government and that of Canada, but I do object to inserting it in the terms. I think it may lead to the danger of the Canadian Government saying, when other things come to be considered : “ You don’t want this, it is not mentioned in the terms ; had you really required this it would scarcely have been omitted in terms so full as these.” Hon. Mr. ROBSON — In reply, I say that the Government has inserted a number of special things in the terms ; and with reference to the Geological Survey, I believe Newfoundland got this very matter inserted under the direction of Governor Musgrave. Confederation Debate. 153 Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — I rise to support the motion. I cannot understand the opposition. [Hon. Attorney-General — I don’t oppose; divide, divide, divide.] I desire to show the necessity for a Geological Survey. We are now eleven years old as a Colony, and nothing is hardly known of the country. We are behind our neighbours of the United States. In California there is a Geological Surveyor, who has to explore and publish the result of his survey. We should have something of the sort here, and, in addition, a record of the number of available acres of land in the Colony. If 25 or 30 farmers arrived here I would undertake to affirm they could not get any information from the Land Office as to where they could settle down. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I should not like that statement to get abroad uncontradicted. I think these assertions should not be made ; they are likely to do much harm. I should like to see the 25 or 30 farmers come ; let them go to the mouth of the Fraser. There may be some difficulty in getting land in any part or locality, but it is absurd to bring up this fuss about the Land Office. The resolution was put to the vote and carried. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN moved, “ That it is desirable that the Dominion Government shall maintain telegraphic communication with this Colony.” Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — It is absolutely necessary that there should be some telegraphic communication with the outer world. It is palpable that we must have it with the seat of Government. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I t will be in the recollection of some of the Hon. Members that, some years ago, a question was sent out for discussion from the Secretary of State as to the payment by Vancouver Island of a subsidy towards the Trans-Continental Line of Telegraph. She could not afford it. Canada has the wire now taken over from the Hudson Bay Company. I shall support the resolution. I do not regard it as a sine qua non, but very essential. I have no doubt Canada will do it. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I understood the Hon. Member for Victoria City intended to ask the Canadian Government to maintain the existing telegraph line, which runs through a foreign country. Hon. ATTORNEY-GPINERAL — From the general wording of the resolution I am at a loss to know what is meant. I think this is a matter which had best be left out, or we shall be overloading the terms. If I vote against it, it is because we have fully too much on the terms. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS— W hy did not the terms come down to us more perfect? Hon. Dr. CARRALL — I am sorry the resolutions did not come down more perfect, but if they had been ever so perfect Hon. Members would have found fault. I look upon the conduct of Hon. Members in bringing forward the additional resolutions as being inimical to Confederation. Hon. Mr. RING — I shall support the resolution. I think our care will enhance our value in the estimation of Canada. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — It is admitted that if we are to have union we must have telegraphic communication. Why it was left out I don’t know. It must have slipped out, for it was before the Executive. Surely Hon. Members will not have the idea that .$3,000 or $4,000 inserted here will stop Confederation. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS— 3,000 or 4,000 dollars? Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — At present, yes. The only means of communication is through America. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — 1 thought this was a trans-continental telegraph. I am sorry I said anything about it. The Chairman then put the motion, which, on division, was lost. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — W hen I first rose to address this House on the question of Con- federation, I made some passing allusions to nation-making. Now, Sir, I believe we are engaged in that great work. Our posterity will, I believe, control the northern end of this continent for a thousand generations. We find the American continent in the possession of two nations. The northern part in the possession of the Anglo-Saxon race, and the southern part in the possession of the Spanish race. Then again we find the Anglo-Saxon race in the north divided into two nations, with a great mission before them. The first object of the great nation to the south of us may, perhaps, be said to be the acquisition of territory, and they have a 154 Confederation Debate. united piece of territory from our boundary to Mexico. With regard to the northern Anglo- Saxon race — to which we belong — we find that they possess all the north except Alaska. If the United States have a single and compact piece of territory to the south, we want the same in the north. Look at history as regards the acquisition of territory by nations: Lorraine by France, Poland by Russia, Scotland by England, Texas and Alaska by the United States. How has this been brought about but by a national policy. For hundreds of years it was the policy of France to acquire Lorraine ; so it was with Russia and Poland. It has been said that republics cannot have a national policy as monarchies can ; I say that they have a policy with regard to land. And I say that we should have a policy of the same kind. Let us lay down this principle, that we intend to create a great nation, and intending to do so, we should have all territory north of the United States. I have no objection to the United States gaining territory to the south, but I do object to her coming north or holding Alaska. Let us glance at Alaska for one moment. The country is similar to our own. It has coal, fish, and lumber, as we have, and its- contiguity to our country ought to induce us to believe that there is a natural alliance between us. We all know how much the purchase of this piece of territory cost the United States in hard cash. Then its annual cost is nearly two million dollars, or forty millions to support it as a United States Territory for twenty-five years. Then look at the population, a mere nothing; and its revenue, hardly worth taking into account. It is said by many that America is sick of her bargain, and that Russia sold the United States. I think this is a favourable time to bring it up. Canada can well afford to pay for an extended frontier on the Pacific Coast. If we purchased Alaska the Americans could still come in to fish and gather furs ; so, commercially, there need be no difficulty. I believe we could get along smoothly ; therefore, I have to move this resolution : — “ That Canada shall purchase the Territory of Alaska, if possible.” I hope, Sir, in all our relations for the future we shall remain international, not national. Hon. Dr. CARRALL — I rise to support the resolution of the Hon. Mr. DeCosmos. The only objection I can see is, that perhaps it is a little premature. That Canada will ultimately acquire it, I can have no doubt. In supposing that the acquisition of this Territory, and the consequent hemming in of British Columbia would have the effect of leading the people of Canada to believe in the ultimate destiny of the British American possessions being drawn into annexa- tion, or absorption, the Hon. W. H. Seward made an egregious blunder ; he did it in his ignorance of the Canadian character. It is not necessary for Canadians to get up and show their loyalty daily, they are ready and able to occupy their position of imperium in imperio. There may be some people in Canada who do not like the Government. In what country are there not some uneasy spirits? The United States has them, and England is not free from them. I shall decidedly support the Hon. member, although, I think, he is, perhaps, a little in advance of American statesmen as to the acquisition of territory. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — I think Mr. Seward understood what he was about when he effected the purchase of Alaska. I feel convinced that the Government of the United States will not consent to let us have it. I have a strong feeling in favour of the United States, and am satisfied that they should have Alaska. I don’t think Canada can afford to repurchase the Territory ; nor do I think she has men to pit against the intellectual giants of America. I think the Hon. Member for Victoria District has perpetrated a joke on this Council ; I shall, however, support his motion. Hon. Mr. RING — I rise to support the motion of the Hon. Member for Victoria District. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I think this a subject of too great importance to be disposed of hastily. It ought to be fully discussed. I agree with the Hon. Member for Victoria District that such is desirable, but I also agree with the Hon. Member for Cariboo that it is somewhat premature. I think the people of the United States would like to get rid of it; would be rather glad to back out of it. Their policy is to let it “ paddle its own canoe.” If we wait it will probably fall into our hands. If we are to make a suggestion as to the acquisition of territory we should not confine ourselves to Alaska only. Let us have Maine also. It impinges upon Canada on the Atlantic; and it is a portion of land out of which England allowed herself to be cheated. It is well known that Maine is most important, as giving an open winter seaboard to Canada; a large portion of Canadian trade has had to pass through Maine in bond. I believe the Dominion of Canada will eventually utterly absorb America. (Laughter.) Some may laugh, but that is my conviction. The United States have made great progress, but the Constitution is very defective. Confederation Debate. 155 It cannot bear the creation of another nation, especially one of such a liberal and enlightened constitution as the Dominion of Canada, alongside of it. One of two things is perfectly certain to my mind : That the Dominion will absorb the United States, or that they will meet as one nation, each giving up something. I think it is contrary to nature that they should continue separate. I believe that so great will be the success of the new British North American Empire, that it will absorb all the English-speaking people on this continent. The people of Maine desire to belong to Canada, and have done so for years. If, on the Pacific, the Dominion acquires Alaska, and the State of Maine on the Atlantic, I assert that the great destiny of the Empire is assured. I move that the State of Maine be included. Hon. Me. HUMPHREYS — All we lack now is a Leech or Douglas Jerrold. I think we shall immortalize ourselves; probably we shall appear in Punch. I think Mr. Seward won’t blame us. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I must move an amendment. We shall be absorbed before this absorption can take place. I shall move to leave out the words “ if possible.” I think the frog has swollen to the size of an ox. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — These debates should be carried on with becoming gravity. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I think so, too, and I think it would be the duty of any Leech amongst us to secure a correct sketch of the movers of the resolution and amendments. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I think the Hon. the Attorney-General should give his opinion. The words “ if possible,” on vote, were struck out. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — S hall the words “ State of Maine ” be included? Several Members — Yes, yes. The motion “ That Canada shall purchase the Territory of Alaska and the State of Maine ” was carried. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — Mr. Chairman, as there is no further resolution before the Committee, except my own upon roads, I shall, without further words, move its adoption. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — I think it unwise to hamper these conditions, but I consider this an important question. I am here to protest on behalf of persons who pay road tolls. The excuse made for this imposition is that the Colony is indebted for the construction of these roads. People have looked to Confederation to relieve them of the $4 per barrel duty upon flour, which they have been paying for so long. I desire to move an amendment to strike out the Douglas Road, as I believe it to be unnecessary. I know that the Upper Country people will raise their voices against the continuance of the road tolls. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — T he question was alluded to 'by myself when the terms were under discussion. I think the roads, if not national, ought to be local. I think the matter ought to be approached differently in dealing with this road. I think that shortly this plank in the platform of terms will be useless, because the railway will span the distance if Confederation is granted on the terms proposed; therefore, I do not see the wisdom of handing them over to Canada. I think it desirable that road tolls should tbe abolished, and that we must have something to compensate us for giving them up. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I cannot assent to either the original motion or the amend- ment. I premise by saying the matter has received considerable consideration. The original resolution, which was suggested by the Hon. Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, took up this whole matter. I am sorry the House has not adjourned to give him an opportunity to explain his views upon this question. His opinion is that the road from Yale to Cariboo would not be so well managed by the Government at Ottawa as by the Local Government. The Hon. Member for Yale says that there are no reasons for road tolls. There is one, as stated by the Hon. Chief Commissioner. It is being continually improved, therefore a road of that description ought to carry with it a road toll for its construction and maintenance as a matter of principle, even after the original cost is paid. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS, with the consent of the House, withdrew his resolution in order to make some verbal alterations in it. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — I shall move the same amendment as I moved to the former resolution. I will read it : — “ That the Government be requested to insert in the Terms of Confederation to be proposed “ to Canada some such clause as the following : All public roads and property of British Colum- “ bia at the time of admission to belong to British Columbia, except such public works and 156 Confederation Debate. “ property as shall properly belong to the Dominion under the ‘ British North America Act,’ and “ such portions of the Main Trunk Line through British Columbia, or other roads then con- “ structed, as may be necessary to complete a continuous line of coach road from a point at or “ below Yale to a point at the foot of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, and that the “ same shall be free of toll of any kind whatever.” Hon. Mr. RING — I agree that some road tolls ought to be kept up. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — My only object is to bring this matter before the Executive. I cannot agree with the Hon. Member for Yale. I have not opposed any proposition of any mall from personal motives. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — I oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for Lillooet. I think it does not meet the question. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — The objection to the whole matter in shape of a resolution is that by talking of road tolls we raise expectations we cannot probably fulfil. I had hoped Hon. members would not press the subject. I assure the Hon. gentlemen that the petitions sent up have been the subject of earnest consideration. I attach weight to what the Hon. Member for Yale says in this House, and regret that such a feeling should go abroad. Hon. Dr. CARR ALL — I, as Member for Cariboo, should say something upon this matter. I have some doubt upon it. I would say this much, as a member of the Government, that is, that many of the resolutions brought up here and vetoed will probably form the subject of negotiation with the delegation in settling the terms. They will be a sort of substratum. I regard the taxing of those who use the roads as the proper means for the keeping up the road, and, furthermore, I fear to overload the terms. Hon. Mr. HOLBROOK — For such roads as were made on the petition of the people tolls are justifiable, but tolls should not be kept up after the debt is defrayed. No doubt when this road comes under the rule of Canada she will construct turnpikes. Our road tolls are too high. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I regret the absence of the Hon. Chief Commissioner. I think that he has an impression that some such resolution as this is necessary. I regret that the matter was brought up to-day at all. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I proposed that the matter should be left open until Monday. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — Then let it be left open. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I have pointed out the Hon. Chief Commissioner’s objections. He says that the road can be better kept up by the Local than the Dominion Government. I regret the absence of the Hon. Chief Commissioner. He did not state to me any certain impres- sion, but I am sure he would have been glad to have joined in the discussion. It has, I have no objection to state, been discussed in Executive Council, and this discussion will do no good. I must oppose such resolutions going up to the Governor, for it may create expectations which, when the terms go to the polls, cannot be fulfilled. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I have nor- doubt when the terms come to the polls there will be one howl of discontent at the financial part of them from Cariboo to New Westminster. I wish to see road tolls free, but I do not wish to see the Dominion Government taking charge of our local interests, such as tolls. With regard to terms, I say that the financial terms will kill Con- federation when it comes to the polls. The people from Cariboo to New Westminster want these road tolls abolished. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — The Attorney-General suggests, on behalf of the Hon. Chief Commis- sioner, that we shall lose the revenue; but this is a gain if we get free from the maintenance of the roads. The Government should consider themselves part of the people, and endeavour to relax taxes. Another objection is, that under this arrangement roads would not be kept in repair so well as at present. I say, under Confederation, the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works would have control of roads. The Dominion Government is less likely to be penuri- ous than a Local Government. The Hon. Chief Commissioner spoke to me after making that objection, and my distinct impression is that the Hon. gentleman would support some such proposition as this. We ask what is in perfect harmony with reason. We may just as well ask Canada to do the whole thing, and to maintain the whole road. Hon. Mr. RING — It astonishes me that Hon. gentlemen are connecting revenue with these tolls. It can only be justifiable to keep tolls for the repair of roads. Hon. I)r. HELMCKEN — I am on the horns of a dilemma. If I vote for road tolls being taxable, I shall be told I want to make the terms too heavy; if against them, I should be told I am against Confederation. Confederation Debate. 157 Hon. Me. WALKEM — Sir, I have made few speeches during this debate, but this is a question on which I must ask leave to say a few words. Session after Session the question has been brought down. We have had always a large Victoria element, and this question has, unfortunately, always taken a Victoria and Mainland issue. I have studied this matter care- fully. With regard to the Acts themselves they are very strong ; they commence with preambles as to construction, maintenance, and repair. The toll was not mentioned as to continue merely until the debt was extinguished, therefore I think the vote should be taken on another view. The benefits accrue equally to Victoria and the Upper Country ; probably the farmer gets the lion’s share ; I know the Upper Country pretty well ; formerly the miner used nothing outside of bacon and flour. This should not be made an Island and Mainland question. Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN — I do not regard the subject as a joke. We have paid $60,000 for roads on Vancouver Island — roads not one-twentieth the length of those on the Mainland. Victoria gets more kicks than halfpence. Victoria pays the greater part of the tolls. I belong to a company who pay a large proportion. What do they propose in place of a road toll? Some one must pay it. Thirty thousand dollars per annum is required to keep roads in repair. I say Victoria and Vancouver Island are more concerned with what is for the good of the Colony, generally, than any part of the Mainland. Hon. Mb. HUMPHREYS — I rise to bear testimony to the fairness of the Hon. Members for Vancouver Island in whatever concerns the Mainland. I have always seen a desire on the part of Vancouver Island Members to legislate for the whole, and not for a part, of the Colony. I am as tired of this bickering as any Member of the Mainland. I consider it our duty to be more united. If the Hon. Members for New Westminster and Yale would talk less about injustice to the Mainland it would be better. I regret the action of the Hon. Member for Yale ; it is factious. Plon. Mr. BARNARD — Vancouver Island has always made practical jokes of any questions from the Mainland. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS rose to order. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — I referred to the Hon. gentleman for Victoria City. There are no road tolls on Vancouver Island. [Yes, a road tax ! — Hon. Dr. Helmcken.] As soon as the roads are paid for the people of the Mainland will, to a man, refuse to pay any more road tolls. Every item has been used as a threat against Confederation. I do not offer any such threat. I believe the Upper Country would accept Confederation on the terms proposed; but if the Government expect that they will be able to collect this $60,000 from the population of the Upper Country they are mistaken. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — T he Hon. Member for Yale is unjust to Vancouver Islanders. The whole of this Colony is paying large sums of money for interest on debt on roads. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — I did not say what I did with reference to Vancouver Island Members without consideration. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I hope that Government Members, in view of the absence of the Hon. Chief Commissioner, will vote so as to allow this resolution to go forward. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I must express a contrary hope. The amendment of Hon. Mr. Barnard was carried. The Committee rose and reported the resolutions complete. Council resumed, and the resolutions passed in Committee were adopted, except those with regard to the purchase of Alaska and the State of Maine. Wednesday, 6th April, 1870. The Hon. Attorney-General, in the absence of the Hon. Colonial Secretary, Presiding Member. On motion, the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, to take into consideration the Message of His Excellency the Governor respecting the provision to be made for the sending of Delegates to Ottawa. Hon. Mr. Ball in the Chair. 158 Confederation Debate. Hon. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS— Sir, I rise to move,— “ That suitable provision be made by this House for the payment of the expenses of the “ Delegates to be sent from this Colony to Ottawa to negotiate the terms of the Confederation “ of this Colony with the Dominion of Canada.” This has been one of the preliminary steps taken by the other Colonies before going into Confederation. If it has been necessary in other cases, it is certainly necessary for us. The expense is comparatively small, probably from $2,500 to $3,000, and the Governor has preferred to bring the matter before the Council now, instead of putting it into a supplementary estimate next session. Hon. Mr. RING — Sir, I beg to inquire why these resolutions cannot be transmitted by post. I do not see why the Colony should be put to the expense of conveying the message; there is postal communication with Canada, and sufficient means of conveying to the Canadian Govern- ment what we have agreed upon. There can be no necessity to send Hon. Members to Ottawa. The fact of our doing so would lead to the presumption that Confederation is agreed upon. I differ from that. I say the people want to have the terms before them. Let us first see whether the Colony assents to Confederation in the abstract. Why should we send three or four Hon. and learned gentlemen — learned, no doubt. Why, I say, should we have the Colony put to so much expense when it is in a state of poverty and bankruptcy. [No, no.] I say, dispatch the terms in the ordinary way by post. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I hope, Sir, it will not be necessary to fight our battles over again. This House has, in the name of the Colony — [No, no, from Hons. Ring and Drake.] Perhaps it will suit some Hon. Members better to say a majority of this House. [No, no.] Perhaps certain Hon. Members will have the decency to be quiet until their turn comes to speak. A majority of this House — an overwhelming majority — has decided upon terms. We shall get the consent of the Canadian Government to these, or modified, conditions, and then submit them to the people. That is the only way. If we were, as proposed by the Hon. Member for Nanaimo, to ask the people whether they wanted Confederation, what would they say? [Mr. Ring — They would say “ No ! ”] They w’ould say most emphatically, “ Yes, on terms.” They have said so for years. The Governor has adopted the usual course. These resolutions will go to the Canadian Government and come back, perhaps, modified, and the people will then be asked if they will have Confederation on these terms. The terms are now proposed to be sent to Ottawa. I cannot agree with the Hon. Member for Nanaimo that it would be cheaper to send them by post. The first outlay might be smaller, but it might cause delay, and, in my opinion, British Columbia cannot afford delay. The telegraph might do, but it would cost more. It ought to be by delegation. I think the House is entitled to know who are to go. I presume the Govern- ment will be prepared to give us the names. I, for one, would be unprepared to vote a sum of $2,500, or more likely, $5,000, if I thought the Governor would send Delegates who would not be acceptable to the people. I say that the people ought to be represented, and that particular Members who will fairly represent the people on the Responsible Government question ought to go. I say that if the Delegates are silent on Responsible Government the Cabinet at Ottawa will raise it. If the Delegates say that British Columbia is not prepared for it, that it has been voted down, the Cabinet will say, they have reason to believe that the people, or a large proportion of them, want it, and that they have had enough of discontent. I say, that although Responsible Government is not, strictly speaking, a condition, it underlies and permeates the whole question. Hon. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS — Nothing would be easier than to forward the resolutions by post to Canada. This has probably been done already ; but on every one of the resolutions, as you all know, there are numerous points requiring explanations, and to make these effective the presence at Ottawa of Delegates on our part, understanding the question and authorized to act for us, would appear to be indispensable. I am inclined to think that the names of the Delegates are pretty well known, but I have no authority to mention them here. The Governor has chosen them on his own responsibility, and he does not ask the Council to share that respon- sibility. For what purpose should the names be given? Does the Council wish to canvass the merits of each individual? What those gentlemen will say on the subject of Responsible Govern- ment I am not prepared to tell you ; but I tell you this, that on that subject and on every other they will act with fairness and ability, with no discredit to themselves and with no discredit to 7is. I am ready at any rate to trust them so far as that. I hope this Council will trust them, as the Governor has shown himself ready to trust them. Every year there are expenses that Confederation Debate. 159 cannot be provided for except in the Supplementary Estimates. This will doubtless be one of them. There will be no objectionable special tax, that I know of. proposed on this account. If there is, it will be time enough to oppose it when it comes. In the meantime you are asked simply to authorize the expenditure of a small sum of money for an object of infinite importance. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — There is a mighty curious dust kicked up by great opposites when they meet. I think we shall see some of these gentlemen hoisted on their own petards. I have a pretty good idea who the gentlemen are, and I do not think they represent the people, especially in the matter of Responsible Government. I believe the Governor wdll act fairly and honourably, but I think he will not select men who will be acceptable to the people. My opinion is, that the Hon. Chief Commissioner, the Hon. Member for Victoria, and the Hon. Attorney-General do not represent the people. Popular members will be untrue to themselves. Hon. Mr. DEWDNEY — The Hon. Member has had his guess. I do not desire to mention names. I would merely suggest that His Excellency be requested to select one of the Delegates from the Mainland. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — My views on Responsible Government have been so often expressed that there is no occasion to refer to them again, but I am astonished that after Hon. Members have told us that the people are a unit in favour of Responsible Government, they should be afraid to trust it to the people, or to the Council, which His Excellency has told you he will form after this Session. Why, then, are Hon. Members so desirous to weight down the terms? Are they afraid that the people will not be so unanimous at the polls in favour of Responsible Government? His Excellency has told you that, if allowed by Her Majesty’s Government, he proposes to form a Council which will be representative. I, for one, have no doubt about the permission. The question will then be left to that Council. Why are Hon. Members afraid to le%ve this question to the representatives of the people? Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — I will answer the Hon. Chief Commissioner: we are not afraid of putting the question before the people, but I am afraid that members of that delegation will misrepresent the opinions of the people to the Canadian Government ; I fear the people will not be represented. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — Mr. Chairman, I intend to oppose the resolution proposed by the Hon. Collector of Customs. I think that if Hon. Members examine this message in connection with His Excellency’s speech, it is apparent that the resolutions were sent down complete. This House 'was not allowed to alter them. The recommendations of Hon. Members were voted down. I think it would be better to send the resolutions by post as the resolutions of Government ; they are not the resolutions of this Committee. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — They are the resolutions of this House. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — No ; only of the official majority. The expense is unnecessary ; it is one which will be incurred to enforce the view's of Government. His Excellency asks that he should be authorized to expend a sum of money for this special purpose. A special tax is asked for. If we accede to this message we are assuming the responsibility. I w r ould like to ask this question: Is the Delegation to take powers from this House or from the Government? Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — I must reply without delay to one proposition. I w r ould like the Hon. gentleman to point out any one example or suggestion which, if defeated, was not defeated by a majority of, so-called, popular members, w r ith the exception of Responsible Government, in w T hich there w^as a majority of, so-called, representative members. The Hon. gentleman’s remarks fall to the ground. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — The mistake has been made at that end of the table. I think we are in duty bound to send Delegates and raise the money. My only objection is, that the names are withheld. I cannot understand w r hy Hon. Members should vote against this message. I believe w r e are all agreed that Delegates should go, but if names are not sent down, I must vote against it. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — M r. Chairman, I scarcely expected a discussion upon this point ; I should have supposed that this House would have voted the money at once. The question is whether this Delegation will be representative or not. I do not intend to offer any factious opposition. I am satisfied that the people will take means to send a people’s delegation. Hon. Mr. BARNARD — Current report names the gentlemen. The object of sending by delegates is that the terms may be modified if necessary. If unsatisfactory, will not the people have a right to say : “ How could we expect anything better.” Here are tw T o members recent 1G0 Confederation Debate. converts, and one a decided opponent. How can a popular member go to bis constituents after voting this money? Tbe people are in earnest in this matter. I stand on the floor of this House a Government contractor, and likely to support the Government, but so long as I gave a straight vote on Confederation my constituents cared not about anything else. On the Mainland we have been firm on Confederation all through, and the Mainland is ignored. The two Hon. gentlemen at the head of this table represent the Island, and the other Hon. Member represents the Island. The Mainland is not going to be satisfied, particularly when the Hon. senior Member for Victoria, who has consistently opposed, and will oppose, Confederation, is to be one of the Delegation. For the first time in twenty years the Hon. gentleman leaves this Island. He knows nothing about the interior of the country. Hon. Mr. DRAKE — The Hon. Chief Commissioner stated that the whole of the recom- mendations were carried, except one, by the majority of the popular vote. I instance free port and the telegraph to the contrary. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER— I must explain that I spoke from recollection. I was not in the House. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I claim that the official members who voted against Responsible Government must be struck out. But if we allow them to be counted, there is still a majority of six to three of the representative members in favour of Responsible Government ; and I say that this resolution ought to be transmitted with such explanation as is necessary. With regard to Responsible Government being in the hands of the New Council, Members will, we may presume, be elected for four years ; consequently, the question will, in all probability, be post- poned for four years. And I say that those who keep back Responsible Government will run a great risk of having Confederation defeated at the polls. Some Hon. Members may desire such a result. If so, I can understand the course they are taking. a With regard to the individuals going on the Delegation, if we are to take the general rumour, there is not one who will properly represent the Mainland. There are two recent converts, and one open opponent of Confederation, an implacable and politically unprincipled enemy to Confederation, leagued with some power, I won’t say with the cloven-footed gentleman, but with some power to defeat Confederation. The people will not be satisfied. It is extraordinary that the Governor should make such a selection, ignoring the whole Confederation party and the whole Mainland as a territory. I could not justify myself if I voted for this resolution, which will virtually be voting for three Island Members, two recent converts and one — [No, no, from Dr. Helmcken] — well, I won’t say it again. (Laughter.) I can understand a Government dishonest at heart pursuing this course, but I cannot understand a Government that is true to the cause doing so. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER — Mr. Chairman, Hon. Members seem to be in position of fighting shadows in the dark. If they are wrong in their suppositions all the words that have been spoken to-day are thrown away. I fully concur in what fell from the Hon. Collector of Customs, that it is not proper that these names should be given. Hon. Members who favour Confederation should be the last to object to the Governor’s selecting members. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I have faith in the honesty of His Excellency in the matter of Con- federation. The only act that shook me and other Confederationists was the appointment of the Hon. Member for Victoria City to the Executive Council. I believe His Excellency to be a Confederate at heart. I will, in order to simplify matters, move to report progress, and ask leave to sit again, so that the Governor may have the opportunity of sending down names, or, at all events, of satisfying the Mainland that their interests, and Responsible Government, are cared for. The motion to rise and report progress was lost. Hon. Mr. RING — I think this debate, if it may be so called, is quite uncalled for and unnecessary. It is ridiculous to bring up the names of men who may possibly go to Ottawa and discuss them ; it ought not to be allowed ; it is waste of time and lungs. I had prepared a resolution that the terms should be sent by post, but I see that it would be vain to put it to the vote. If delegates go they ought to be properly equipped. I shall not, therefore, oppose the vote. Hon. Mr. DEWDNEY — I agree with the Hon. Member for Nanaimo that this dehate is waste of time. I think the Mainland will be represented. Hon. Mr. DeCOSMOS — I think it is not a question whether Island or Mainland is repre- sented. We want the views of different parties represented, leaving out the Mainland and Island. Confederation Debate. 161 Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I express a hope that the Government will not press a Government vote. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I can inform Hon. Members that I feel perfectly satisfied that the Governor will not send down names. The Hon. Member who names the Delegates has better information than myself. The House having given unanimous adhesion to the terms, - — [No, no, I was the exception, i — Hon. Mr. DeCosmos.] — at all events it was passed by a majority, and so becomes the act of the Council, — we could not expect Canada to send Delegates here; they would be unable to refer to the Executive Council. It must injure the terms if in the debates of this House an expression of opinion goes forth to the world that the Governor has not Confederation truly at heart. The Hon. Member for New Westminster says that I am a convert, and that 1 represent Victoria. I am glad that the old idea that I leaned too much to New Westminster is exploded ; I should be sorry that it should run in the other direction. The Hon. Member for New Westminster has told us if we cannot get Responsible Government, he would not consent to make it a sine qua non. Hon. Mr. ROBSON — I have never said that Confederation would be refused without Responsible Government. Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I have no doubt — I am not speaking from positive knowledge — that the Delegates will be clothed with full power to discuss all the suggestions made on this matter. If Responsible Government is started by the Canadian Cabinet it will receive full consideration. Hon. Mr. HUMPHREYS — The people do not mistrust His Excellency, but they do think that if certain Members of the Government are sent on this Delegation they will endeavour to keep up the present system. I am satisfied that if the Hon. Members named are sent, Con- federation is killed. Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER said those who support Confederation are injuring the cause. I believe, Sir, that if a consistent supporter of Confederation from the Island, and one from British Columbia are sent as this Delegation, with one Member of the Government, such a Delegation would carry confidence even if the terms were modified. I propose to vote for this resolution. I hope the Delegates will be such as will give satisfaction. I contend that there are officials who would add weight to that Delegation, and I should not like to see official members left out. On division the resolution was carried, only one vote being against it. On motion of the Hon. Chief Commissioner, Committee rose and reported resolution passed. House adopted resolution. Reported for the Government hy W. S. SEBRIGHT GREEN. 11 162 Confederation Debate. PROPOSED TERMS OF UNION. Amendments Proposed by the Legislative Council. That the Governor be respectfully requested to strike out figures “ $35,000,” and insert in lieu thereof “ $75,000.” That the figures “ 400,000 ” be altered to “ 1 , 000 , 000 .” That word “ pensions ” he inserted after the word “ allowances.” Resolutions submitted by the Govern- ment. Resolved, That it is expedient that the Colony of British Columbia shall be Confederated with Canada, on the following Terms and Conditions ; that is to say : — 1. Canada shall be liable for the Debts and Liabilities of British Columbia existing at the time of Union. 2. The population of British Columbia shall for the purpose of financial arrangements be estimated at 120,000. British Columbia not having incurred debts equal to those of other Provinces now constituting the Dominion, shall be entitled to receive, by half-yearly payments in advance from the General Government, interest at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum on the difference between the actual amount of its indebtedness at the date of Union and the proportion of the Public Debt of Canada for 120,000 of the population of Canada at the time of PTnion. 3. The following sums shall be annually paid by Canada to British Columbia, for the support of the Local Government and Legislature, to wit : — An annual grant of $35,000, and a further sum equal to 80 cents a head per annum of the population, both payable half-yearly in advance, the population of British Columbia being esti- mated as aforesaid at 120,000. Such grant equal to 80 cents a head to be augmented in proportion to the increase of population, when such may be shown, until the population amounts to 400,000, at which rate such grant shall thereafter remain. 4. The Dominion shall guarantee interest at the rate of 5 per centum per annum on such sum, not exceeding £100,000, as may be required for the construction of a first-class Graving Dock at Esquimalt. 5. In addition to the other provisions of this Resolution, Canada shall assume and defray the charges of the following services : — a. Salary and allowances of the Lieutenant- Governor ; l). Salaries and allowances of the Judges and Officers of the Supreme Court, and of the County Courts; c. The charges in respect of the Department of Customs ; d. The postal Department ; Confederation Debate. 1G3 That the word “ and,” between “ construct ” and “ open,” be erased, and words “ and main- tain ” be inserted after “ traffic.” That this Section be altered so that the sec- tion of the Main Trunk Road between Yale and New Westminster may be included in the Coach Road which the Dominion Government is to be asked to construct within three years from the date of Union. e. Lighthouses, Buoys, Beacons, and Lightship, and such further charges as may be in- cident to and connected with the services which by “ The British North America Act, 18G7,” appertain to the General Government, and as are or may be al- lowed to the other Provinces. 6. Suitable Pensions, such as shall be approved of by Her Majesty’s Government, shall be pro- vided by the Government of the Dominion for those of Her Majesty’s Servants in the Colony, whose position and emoluments derived there- from would be affected by political changes on the admission of this Colony into the Dominion of Canada. 7. The Dominion Government shall supply an efficient and regular fortnightly Steam Com- munication between Victoria and San Francisco by Steamers adapted and giving facilities for the conveyance of passengers and cargo. 8. Inasmuch as no real Union can subsist between this Colony and Canada without the speedy establishment of communication across the Rocky Mountains by Coach Road and Rail- way, the Dominion shall, within three years from the date of Union, construct and open for traffic such Coach Road, from some point on the line of the Main Trunk Road of this Colony to Fort Garry, of similar character to the said Main Trunk Road; and shall further engage to use all means in her power to complete such Rail- way communication at the earliest practicable date, and that Surveys to determine the proper line for such Railway shall be at once com- menced ; and that a sum of not less than one million dollars shall be expended in every year, from and after three years from the date of Union, in actually constructing the initial sec- tions of such Railway from the Seaboard of British Columbia, to connect with the Railway system of Canada. 9. The Dominion shall erect and maintain, at Victoria, a Marine Hospital, and a Lunatic Asylum, either attached to the Hospital or separate, as may be considered most convenient. The Dominion shall also erect and maintain a Penitentiary, or other principal Prison, at such place in the Colony as she may consider most suitable for that purpose. 10. Efficient Coast Mail Steam Service, in connection with the Post Office, shall be estab- lished and maintained by the Government of the Dominion, between Victoria and New West- minster, Nanaimo, and such other places as may require such services. 11. Whatever encouragement, advantages, and protection are afforded by the Dominion Govern- 164 Confederation Debate. That the figures “ 91 ” be inserted after figures “ 18.” That the following words be added at the end of the clause — “ Provided, however, that the number of Members of the Senate shall never be reduced below the number of Four, and the number of Members of the House of Commons below the number of Eight.” ment to the Fisheries ot any of its Provinces, shall be extended in similar proportion to British Columbia, according to its requirements for the time being. 12. British Columbia shall participate, in fair proportion, in any measures which may be adopted, and funds which may be appropriated, by the Dominion, for the encouragement of Immigration. 13. British Columbia shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by Four Members, and by Eight Members in the House of Com- mons, until the year 18 , and thereafter the Representation in the Senate and in the House of Commons shall be increased, subject to the provisions of “ The British North America Act, 1867.” 14. The Union shall take effect on sutfh day as Her Majesty by Order in Council (on an Address to that effect, in terms of the 146th Section of “ The British North America Act, 1867,”) may direct; and British Columbia may, in such Address, specify the Districts, Counties, or Divisions, if any, for which any of the Four Senators to whom the Colony shall be entitled shall be named, the Electoral Districts for which — and the time within which — the first Election of Members to serve in the House of Commons shall take place. 15. The Constitution of the Executive authority and of the Legislature of British Columbia shall, subject to the provisions of “ The British North America Act, 1867,” continue as existing at the time of Union, until altered under the authority of the said Act. 16. The provisions in “ The British North America Act, 1867,” shall (except those parts thereof which are in terms made, or by reason- able intendment may be held to be, specially applicable to and only affect one and not the whole of the Provinces now comprising the Dominion, and except so far as the same may be varied by this Resolution) be applicable to British Columbia, in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the other Provinces of the Dominion, and as if the Colony of British Columbia had been one of the Provinces origin- ally united by the said Act. With reference to Defences : — a. That it shall be an understanding with the Dominion, that their influence will be used, to the fullest extent, to procure the continued maintenance of the Naval Station at Esquimalt. I). Encouragement to be given to develop the efficiency and organization of the Volunteer Force in British Columbia. Confederation Debate. 165 SUPPLEMENTARY RESOLUTIONS In reference to Confederation, proposed by the Legislative Council. Resolved , That in the opinion of this Council, the duties levied upon maltsters and brewers under and toy virtue of the Excise Laws of Canada would be detrimental if made applicable to British Columbia, that His Excellency be therefore earnestly requested to take such steps as he may deem advisable to bring the same to the notice of the Canadian Government, and further to take care that no export duties shall be charged on spars exported from British Columbia. Resolved, That this Council respectfully represent to His Excellency the Governor, that, in negotiating the Terms of Union of British Columbia with Canada, it is of the first importance to point out to the Government of that Dominion, that the circumstances of this Colony are in many respects so different from those of the Eastern Provinces, that the application of the present Canadian Tariff to this Colony, while reducing the aggregate burthen of taxation, would injuriously affect the agricultural and commercial interests of this community ; and that it be, therefore, urgently impressed upon that Government that it is absolutely necessary to our well-being under Confederation that special rates of Customs Duties, and special Customs Regulations, toe arranged for the Colony, in such manner as may be found practically most advisable, so as to secure, while our requirements in this respect remain as at present, an equal measure of protection to our Agricultural Products, and of facility to our Commerce, as are provided under the existing British Columbia Tariff. Resolved, That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor, recom- mending that the Dominion Government shall be requested to cause a Geological Survey of British Columbia to be made ; such Survey to be commenced within one year after its admission into Union. Resolved, That His Excellency the Governor be respectfully requested to insert in the Terms of Confederation to be proposed to Canada, some such clause as the following : — All public works and property of British Columbia at the time of admission to belong to British Columbia, except such public works and property as shall properly belong to the Dominion under the British North America Act, and such portion of the main trunk road through British Columbia, or other roads then constructed, as may be necessary to complete a continuous line of coach road from a point at or below Yale to a point at the foot of the Eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, and that the same shall be free of toll of every kind whatsoever. VICTORIA, B.C. : Printed by William H. Cullin, Printer to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty. 1912.