other countries. When the thirteen American States obtained their independence their territory was no greater than ours; they had a smaller trade, revenue, and population than British America has to-day. Their first act was to strike down the hostile tariffs which separated the provinces and open their country to unrestricted commercial intercourse from Maine to Mexico. The result was that their commerce developed with the utmost rapidity, until they soon became one of the most important commercial countries in the world.

Interprovincial union is no untried experiment. Contrast the condition of the two Canadas before and after the union. When separated by hostile tariffs and legislating against each other, the trade, revenue and credit of both Canadas were paralysed, but from the date of the union all was changed, and the country expanded with the most remarkable rapidity, until it obtained its present advanced position.

I have referred to the effect of union upon the progress and material interests of British America, but I admit frankly that there was one question that far transcended even those interests in importance, and that was the question of defence. The abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, notwithstanding the evidence which existed to show that it had been more beneficial to the United States than ourselves, indicated a wish to obstruct our trade with a view to induce a desire in these provinces for a political connection with that country. The Fenian raids upon the provinces also led to the belief that material aid might be found in British America by those who desired to change our allegiance to the Crown. To insure the most advantageous commercial intercourse with our American neighbours and protection from the harassing annoyance and expenditure connected with the mad designs of the Fenians, no better means could be adopted than to show the world that these hitherto isolated provinces were determined to stand shoulder to shoulder in the maintenance of our

connection with the Crown and those glorious and free British institutions which it has been our happiness to possess.

My hon. friend asks, with a sneer, where are we to obtain an army and navy, and endeavours to hold the Dominion of Canada up to the world as utterly defenceless and at the mercy of any Power who may wish to bring us beneath their yoke. My answer is, that there is a moral strength in our united attitude, which presents four millions of British freemen, devoted in their allegiance to the Crown and prepared to sustain each other in upholding the honour of their common country, which is the best guarantee for peace that we can have. But can my hon. friend be ignorant of the fact that the Imperial Government of Great Britain have pledged themselves to maintain the integrity of this Dominion with the whole power of the Empire against any assault, come from whom it may? Had we been unwise enough to set at defiance the earnest entreaty of the Mother Country to unite our fortunes with each other, that we might be better prepared to assist in maintaining our liberties, we might have had good reason to expect that the aid of that Government under whose fostering protection we have risen to our present position might be withdrawn.

My hon. friend forgets that as long ago as 1854 he declared that these provinces could put 500,000 men in the field and, unaided by British troops, bid defiance to an invader. Now he ridicules the idea of arming the population, and thinks we must fall a helpless prey to an enemy. I have no reason to doubt the entire friendship of the United States. I hope and believe that they will be anxious to resume the most reciprocal and friendly relations with these united provinces. But, Sir, I do not think that under any circumstances that country, so recently suffering from a calamitous war and oppressed by a gigantic debt, would attempt the subjugation of United British America, protected by the mightiest empire in the world. Having thus, Sir, glanced at some of the reasons which have induced

me to advocate a union of these provinces, I will briefly turn your attention to the position of Nova Scotia.

I admit frankly that the union party have been thoroughly and handsomely beaten at the recent general election, but I am happy to be able to relieve this House from the apprehension that an overwhelming majority of the people of that province are determined to obstruct and break down the union which has been formed. It is no new thing with us to have sweeping changes on such occasions. Only four years ago my hon. friend, notwithstanding his unrivalled popular talents, went to the polls with all the power of the Government, of which he was the head, in his hands, when he found himself beaten in one of his strongholds by a majority of over 500, and 13 only of his supporters out of a household of 55 members were elected.

The Government of which I had the honour to be the leader believed that they owed a higher duty to the country than the maintenance of themselves and their party in power. The measure brought in to extend the railway to Pictou on the St. Lawrence cost us the support of the Western members known as the Yarmouth School. The measure providing for the support of schools by direct and compulsory taxation, so obnoxious to all young countries, was sufficient of itself to drive any party from power, and would have swept us aside if the union had never been heard of. The Government were charged by their opponents with having sacrificed the interests of the fishermen to a Canadian policy to issue fishing licences, and those who have heard my hon. friend to-night can form some idea of the effect of his perambulating the country with fierce denunciations of that kind, and with our having taxed the bread of the poor man in the interests of Canada, because we believed it impolitic to free their flour from the duty imposed by the repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty. The facts, however, remained that the fishing grounds of Nova Scotia were occupied by the fishermen of the United

States on payment of an insignificant charge, and a duty existed on American flour. This House can also imagine the consternation and dread excited in the back settlements of the country by the vivid and heartrending pictures drawn by my hon. friend of the youth and manhood of the country being taken from their homes to protect the interminable line of the Canadian frontier. While the people were told on the one hand that they must resort to direct taxation to sustain the local services of the country, Mr. Howe had everywhere asserted the statement made tonight, that the first effect of Confederation would be to increase the indirect taxation of the country 50 per cent. It would be no doubt gratifying to the House to know that the financial position of Nova Scotia was so good; but the Finance Minister, who had to find the money, would show the House that so far the Dominion had not made much out of that province. The truth was, that to complete the public works on her own responsibility she would have been obliged to largely reduce the expenditures for the leading services or increase her tariff to at least 15 per

cent.

Then it must not be forgotten that the recent election was run under a franchise created by the Government of my hon. friend, and which came into operation for the first time at the last election. In addition to all this, the Government was obliged just before the dissolution to bring in a new Representation Bill in order to adapt the local Constitution to the new state of things under the union. We were thus compelled to reduce largely the representation of several counties, an act in itself extremely repulsive to the electors. The popular cry was raised that the union, irrespective of its merits, had been forced on the people in an arbitrary and unconstitutional manner.

I need not, in this House I am sure, defend the mode in which the Union Act was carried by the Imperial Parliament, based upon the action of large majorities in the legislatures of all the provinces affected by that Act. Pitt

and Peel, and all the most eminent statesmen of England, have in the most unmistakable terms asserted the right of Parliament to deal with any question, constitutional or otherwise, which in their judgment the good of the country demanded. My hon. friend himself, and all the leading public men in Nova Scotia, had from time to time recorded their opinion in favour of the colonies being united precisely in the mode adopted in this instance. Yet unionists and anti-unionists alike were called upon to denounce the mode as an invasion of their rights, and punish those who carried the measure. Notwithstanding all these advantages in going to the polls, the House will be surprised to learn that my hon. friend Mr. Howe and his supporters failed to induce one-half of the electors of the province to go to the polls and record their votes in their favour. I have made the following calculation up with all the care in my power, and will be glad to submit my figures to the scrutiny of my hon. friend. The unionists contested all but three counties in the province. In those three I have given the unionists one-third and two-thirds to the other side. There are about 48,000 voters in the province. Of them about 10,000 did not go to the polls at all, and of the remainder about 15,000 voted for the union candidates and 22,500 for their opponents, giving them a majority of about 7,500 votes in all.

But, Sir, I am not prepared to admit that a majority of the electors have pronounced against the union or in favour of its repeal. Nay, more, Sir; I am prepared to show the House that my hon. friend himself, and many of his leading supporters, went to the country prepared to give this union a fair trial. My hon. friend (Mr. Howe) at a large meeting at Mason Hall, at Halifax, previous to the election, said: "Let us hope that they (the Canadians) will act justly. If they do, we should aid them to work the new system fairly"; and subsequently referring to the pledge then given, the hon. gentleman, in a letter addressed to the people of Canada