Newfoundland Debates on Confederation

From Canadian History Portal - HCO

CanText | Pre 1500 | 1500s | 1600s | 1700s | 1800-50 | 1851-68 | 1868-84 | 1885-99 | 1900-20 | 1921-45 | 1945-67 | 1968-99 | 2000s | CanLit | Misc | Online | Google |

1864-65
Newfoundland Debates Pro & Con Confederation

C. F. Bennett to The Newfoundlander, December 5, 1864.

... whilst I am prepared to admit that the proposed confederation of the Continental Provinces, and with them the Islands of Cape Breton and Prince Edward's, is a most indispensable and wise measure ..., yet I nevertheless more than doubt the wisdom of this colony becoming a party to that measure, for the reason that our interest and theirs are not identical. We are chiefly and almost wholly by nature's laws a fishing population, possessing rich resources in our fisheries, and, I believe, in our minerals. Our agricultural capabilities must be confessed by all to be very limited. The railways, canals and great public works required in the Provinces, to say nothing of the military works of defence involving an immense amount of expense, cannot possibly be of any use to this colony. The sending of Delegates to Canada, apart from the proportional amount of revenue which we should have to contribute towards the support of the Confederate Government, would entail a very heavy expense, and not the least disadvantage that we should suffer ... would be the sacrifice of our independent legislation and the control of our own rich colonial resources for the benefit of that nationality which, so far as I can at present conceive, can confer but few and trifling benefits on us.

C.F. Bennett to The Newfoundlander, January 12, 1865.

... For my part I believe that it [Union with Canada] will interfere with our present intercourse with the United States and other countries, and do our commerce incalculable injury. And if we are to be supplied with Canadian manufactures free of duty, higher import dues will necessarily have to be imposed upon our imports from Great Britain and elsewhere, and a heavy tax to be levied also upon the export of our fish, oil, and other produce.

In what respect I would ask are the cities, towns and villages - the lands of Canada - their railroads - public offices - educational colleges, or any other advantages which the Canadian or neighbouring Provinces possess to be more open to the inhabitants of this Colony under Union than they are at the present time? ....

For my part I know of none - on the contrary, I know of a great many persons who have gone to Canada and the other Provinces with the view to benefit themselves ....I ask again what hope could a youth in this Colony rationally entertain that his interest through the four members of the Council and the eight members of the General Parliament would have against the political influence which the young men of Canada could exercise in their 195 members, and the youth of the adjoining Provinces over their members, to assure them an appointment to any of those offices? My experience would tell them that they would have very little, and I think none.... The Postal arrangements we shall no doubt have if we consent to pay for them, as we could, on the same terms, have them at the present moment.

... We require here simply wise laws to protect our Fisheries, to resuscitate and make them what they have been in olden times, as great a source of wealth and happiness to its industrial population as the best of the lands of Canada or New Zealand, or any other country, or the mineral stores of Peru, California, or Australia are to their respective populations, to say nothing of the resources of the mineral treasures which we have in Newfoundland, and that they are not insignificant I can confidently state.

... One of my apprehensions is, that we shall be more than doubly taxed, not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of the profligate Canadians, whose finances are, with their present heavy taxation of 20 per cent on their imports from Britain, and their own local taxation, inadequate to meet their expenditures. With a debt of Sixty-two and a half million dollars !!! ...

I could speak of many disadvantages, ... I will ... enumerate a few ... they are as follows:

The annihilation of our independent Legislature, and of self-legislation ..... The power of the Canadian Parliament to tax us without limit.

The severance of this Colony from a direct alliance and communication with the Government of Great Britain, to an indirect alliance and communication.

To make our appellant cases from the Supreme Court to the Superior Courts of Canada, before we can go ... [to] the Imperial Privy Council.

To vest the power in the Canadian Government to make thereafter all appointments to office in this Colony.

To give them the entire control over our Fisheries, Lands and Minerals. And not least among other calamities, the power to extract the youth, both married and unmarried, of the able-bodied men of the Colony to shed their blood and to leave their bones to bleach in a foreign land, in defence of the Canadian line of boundary... And for what benefit to us in Newfoundland? ....

The advocates of the union in this Colony are very few. I doubt if they exceed a score. Were they even more, I ask will they have the honesty to oppose their feeble voice against the many? Will they attempt even the introduction of the threatened resolution adopting the principle, before the sense of the country is taken upon it? ....

SOURCE: F.B.T. Carter's Pro-Confederate Speech, 1865

Extracts from Speech by F.B.T. Carter (Conservative, District of Burin), House of Assembly Debate, January 27, 1865. The Newfoundlander, February 2, 1865

He expected to spend his life in the country, and he did not anticipate any personal advantages from the proposed federation, farther than it would promote the prosperity of the land of his nativity and the home of his children. It was said they were giving away the fisheries. Now those who said so knew it was not true. They knew that the people of all British North America had the same interest in the fisheries as we have.. Again, it was said we were destroying the liberties of the people. Would any person have his liberty curtailed by taking up his residence in Great Britain, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or Canada? ....

[I]t was the very first decision come to at the Conference that.... the model of the British government would be followed, so far as circumstances would permit ....

Our British connection would be guaranteed by an Act of the Imperial Parliament..... Would not our liberties be as well secured as at present, and our British connection perpetuated for ages to come? ....

How could we have a militia force in this Colony. Our fishermen9 from the very nature of their occupation, could not be organised into a militia.. There might be some legislation with respect to the Volunteers, but he was certain that Britain would continue to use the protection of her troops, and that the navy would not be withdrawn. But it was said "you are going to bind us to Canada". Now we had heard that said by people who had never seen Canada, who had never been out of this Colony; and perhaps it would be as well for some of them to travel a little and visit that magnificent province, as well as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which were advancing so rapidly in material prosperity, and in all that tended to make a people great and respected. ....

These countries were all more prosperous than we are, for it must be admitted that we are at the lowest point of depression.... But the union was objected to on the plea of increased taxation. Could any honourable member recollect when, a few years ago, the great leader of the opposition to this confederation proposed to lay an export duty on fish and oil? And now he came forward, as the professed friend of the fisherman, to oppose the union on the plea of increased taxation.... Did not the fishermen at present get flour imported, duty free, under the reciprocity treaty, and was there any reduction in their accounts in consequence? But we must bear in mind that a notice has been given to abrogate the reciprocity treaty, and with it we should lose our free trade with the other colonies, for we could not expect, if we refused to join in this confederation, that the other provinces would continue the admission of our produce duty free. But under this confederation, not only the products of the fisheries and of agriculture, but also the manufactures of the several provinces would pass duty free from one to the other.... Let this convention be carried out, and food and clothing for our fishermen would be brought in duty free from the neighbouring provinces. Again, they should support this confederation on account of their children ..... What future was there for any young man brought up in this country? If his object was to engage in commercial pursuits, where was he to get his training? ....

Our young men could apply to these members, whose interest would be made available to forward their views.... Then were we not in a state of the deepest depression? And what would raise us from it so effectually as union...? ... The financial arrangements entered into would give a better revenue than we had on the average of the last ten years.... We would also be provided with direct steam communication at the expense of the Federal Government, as well as steam communication with Canada, which, no doubt, would induce the visits of capitalists, and stimulate enterprise, leading to competition, which, while it would benefit the community, was not, perhaps, desired by some. But although it might be the means of reducing profits, anything that would promote employment must prove beneficial to the working classes. It was said they were giving away the Crown lands the minerals of the island. From the clamour raised by some gentlemen on this subject, one would imagine that the Canadians were to send down a number of vessels with pickaxes and shovels to carry away the land ....

But what did we want? What had we been wishing for years? Did we not want our wild lands improved? Who was to do it? Was it not well to induce the people who were willing to pay so handsomely for them to improve them....?

there would be no interference with local enterprise, for the lands we as available to us as to any other portion of the Confederation, and local capitalists had greater facilities than those who came from a distance. But our own capitalists, with the exception of Mr. Bennett; had hitherto shown no desire to engage in mining operations ....

Now the Confederation would provide four millions of consumers; a number which was rapidly increasing and with our extensive water power and cheap labour we could offer inducements to enterprising capitalists to establish manufactures, once free access to the British American market was opened up by the Confederation ....

If Confederation was carried out it would be the means of depriving some of our local politicians of the positions they had occupied for some years past; and we all know how difficult it was for small politicians to give up that from which they derived a certain local importance . They knew how difficult it was for those who traded on the passions and prejudices of the people to submit to an arrange- ment by which their occupations would be gone. They did not like the prospect of it, and therefore they pretended great zeal for the interests of the people....Another beneficial result of Confederation would be that the acerbity of feeling which had marked our political contests would be done away with. For a long time past there had been a constant struggle for power between the two religious parties into which our population is divided, and election after election was sought to be carried by means which we all deprecated. With Confederation the effort would be to return to the federal House of Commons the ablest men .... irrespective of creed. Did hon. gentlemen want to see election riots again? Confederation would bring larger questions to occupy the attention of politicians ....There was much unreasonable clamour on the subject of taxation, as if wealthy and populous Canada desired to get this impoverished Colony to squeeze out of us the means of augmenting her own large revenue. The very same parties who said this were those who opposed the establishment of constitutional government here ....But he was satisfied that under confederation we should find such progress as no person at present contemplated. We would be relieved from that isolation which had so long retarded our progress....

Extracts from Speech by R. J. Parsons (Liberal, District of St. John's East) in The House of Assembly, February 3, 1865. The Newfoundlander, February 16, 1865.

... What have we to hope from Canada? Has she anything to bestow upon us? Confederation may be all well enough for the neighbouring Provinces, but for us who are isolated from them having interests entirely different from theirs, what have we to expect. You talk of benefiting our sons. Has not Canada sons too, and will not they be the first to occupy vacant places? Talk of our mines. Canada has mines too, and will she not invest money in them in preference to ours. The fact is, Canada is a troublesome country. She is always in intestine commotion .... She is besides very considerably in debt, with no hope of decreasing it ....

Already we find her people drafted and sent forward to protect her frontier. Already we find them in trouble with the United States, and likely to get into war with them. Should such a war come, will we not have to share it, if we are joined with her? ... As to Union being strength, our Union with Canada would be no Union, and therefore it would have no strength of the bundle of sticks, because we should be but one stick at the end of the bundle. The Speaker [Carter] dwelt largely upon the glorious future which he says is before us under Confederation. I don't believe in that. At all events, we can afford to wait before joining it, till we see what the other Colonies will do ... and afterwards act on their experience .... It is but now we are beginning to appreciate the value of Responsible Government, and are we going to give it up just as we understand its value? Look at the lesson set before us by the United States, and let us hesitate before binding ourselves to a similar Confederation of States.... Under the Confederation the people will have to pay double the amount of taxation they pay now ....

Far better for us will it be to remain as we are. All we need is good fisheries. It is all fudge to say that Canada will supply us more cheaply with manufactures. She can only partially supply herself by an immense protective duty. Her object is plain enough. She is endeavouring to build up her manufactures, and looks to her sister Colonies for her markets, but until she is in a position to compete successfully with Britain, she cannot supply us more advantageously than we are now supplied. Will Canada take our fish and oil from us? No, because she can get enough elsewhere....

Extracts from Speech by Premier H.W. Hoyles (Conservative, District of Burin) Assembly Debate, February14, 1865. The Newfoundlander, March 16, 1865.

... He recollected that, seven or eight years ago, when the question was first mooted by the Governor General, he did not view it very favourably. It appeared to him .... to involve an increase in expenditure for a general government and local governments and legislatures, without as he then apprehended, any corresponding advantage. But when it came before him as a .practical question ... he came to view it in its relation not merely to the present circumstances of this colony, but also in regard to the future, he found that he had made a very great mistake in regarding it as a question of which the decision was to be influenced entirely by pecuniary considerations. On the contrary, it involved numerous important considerations of a social, political, moral and commercial character requiring the closest attention. And although, in some respects, in having relation to the future, the question must be regarded as somewhat of a speculative character ....he had arrived at the conclusion that the proposed Confederation should by all means be entered into ....

A consideration that powerfully influenced his mind .... was the contrast that might fairly be instituted between what Newfoundland now was and what she might be under Confederation. At present we were an insignificant fishing settlement .... with no resources at present available beyond our fisheries and those insufficient for the support of our people .... we could have no prospect of becoming anything but a small colony of little influence or power in any respect, and of no note, importance, or consideration, which, should the protection of Great Britain be withdrawn, must fall a prey to the first power that might chose to take possession of the island ..... On the other hand, what might we be under confederation? We were invited to join a Confederation which, in half a century, would be second to no power on the face of the earth, with a population at present numbering four millions, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific ... with a country abounding with resources such as could not fail, in the hands of an energetic people, to place us in the first rank amongst the nations of the earth ....

When he contrasted this with Newfoundland out of the confederation, with its 130,000 inhabitants subsisting by the fisheries on its coast, and the limited mineral resources which the island was known to possess, he considered it was a duty we owed to ourselves and to posterity to accept the invitation extended to us ....

But it should not be overlooked that the question for our consideration was not whether we should go into the confederation or remain as we are at present - but whether, the confederation being formed, as it undoubtedly would be, by the other provinces, we were prepared to take the consequences of remaining out of it. ....

Now supposing confederation carried out; and that the other provinces went into it and made the suggested provision for the defence of the confederated provinces, and that we remained out, in what light would we be regarded by the government and people of England? They would take no interest in us, ... and [we] would be regarded as a people whose interests were of very little concern, and who, having thrown away the advantages offered to them could be worked upon only as wilful and wayward children. And what, then, could we expect, but that we should be handed over to some subordinate at the Colonial Office, to receive very little of that attention which we now experience. We might find, in time, the ships of war ... sent elsewhere, and the troops ... withdrawn; and attention given to those who were more careful to comply with the wishes of the British Government. ....

It had been stated that Great Britain would never abandon Newfoundland on account of her geographical position. This seemed a whim, a childish delusion. If Newfoundland was of so much importance why was it not made a naval station, in preference to pestilence striken Bermuda, and Halifax; which had always been naval stations? ....

If we were considered of so much importance to Great Britain; why was there so little expended on our fortifications? .... If we declined to enter into the confederation we would not be longer regarded by the other Colonies as a sister colony, but as one which had ... refused all association with them. We should have no claim on their sympathy or support, should we be threatened with another French convention, and their markets would be closed to our produce by prohibitory duties ....

As to the question - what were the materia advantages of confederation; it seemed to him that there were many. With regard to our public men, it opened up a field worthy of their ambition. Let the hon. member for Ferryland, Mr.. Glen, consider the enlarged sphere of advancement which confederation opened up to him' if sent up as a member to the House of Commons, where talent must take the lead whether it came from Newfoundland or Vancouver ....

At the same time he might have an opportunity of benefiting his Newfoundland constituents and the island generally, by promotion of extensive public works, while at present he was laudably endeavouring to promote the interests of the fishermen by urging the construction of a breakwater at Toad's Cove.... [Confederation] must benefit young men in all professions. They had before them an enlarged field for their exertion and proportionally larger prizes to stimulate these exertions in the professions of law and medicine .... Then as to the commercial advantages of confederation. Look at our herring fishery, for instance, at present languishing. Was it nothing to have such a market as Canada which in a few years would take all we could produce? ....

And if when Canada was carrying out large public works we were united with her, was it to be assumed that none of these would be constructed here? And would not those carried out elsewhere afford employment for many of our citizens and labourers? .... And would not this relieve the fisheries from the pressure of a surplus? ....

It had been objected, that in going into the union we were giving up our independence - our right to independent legislation. Every savage entering society gave up a portion of his independence , but did he lose by the change? True, if we wept; into confederation, we would give up a portion of our present control of our affairs. But he did think that we would be well quit of it. What was the history of the colony since we had a local legislature? It was not one on which we could look with satisfaction ... If the strife of the parties should have a narrower scope and have less bitterness ... would it not be a great benefit to the community? On the other hand, if we gave up some power ... would we not have an equivalent in the share we should receive in the general government? ... He considered that nothing for or against union; could be drawn from contrasting the tariff of the two countries, and for this plain reason, that the Canada tariff, being framed for Canada alone, was wholly inapplicable ... to the very different commercial interests of the lower provinces, and the first thing that the united Legislature would have to attend to would be to frame such a tariff ... as would suit the general interest.... [Our tariff] has been rising for years past ... and is yet insufficient. How long will it be before, of our own accord, and from sheer necessity; we lay on our people duties beyond what our most excited alarmists fear from the union? .... Those of our merchants whose capital was employed in the manufacture or importation of British goods, would, for a time, suffer by the change [of confederation] but the people at large would benefit ....

Lastly ... what did those who opposed confederation ... propose as the means whereby they would, in the absence of Confederation, raise the country from its present depression? ...

Look at our present position. Struggle as we may, even with a fair revenue, we cannot keep from going into debt every year for our current expenditure.... It was answered : "Oh, let us have good fisheries, and we are all right" But in the first place, who is to command these good fisheries, and secondly, suppose we had them, what does the history of the colony show? That when we had good fisheries we never laid by for a rainy day, or paid off a shilling of debt; but, on the contrary, got deeper into debt every year whether the fisheries were bad or good. The best that could happen to us was an alternation of good and bad fisheries. And what would be the result of this, judging from experience? As time rolled on, our debt increasing year by year, while our resources were diminishing, and a third of our population for a third of the year were in a starving condition. The end of all this it was not difficult to discover - certain, inevitable national bankruptcy; and if so, where was the hope, in our present isolated state, for the future of Newfoundland? Go into confederation, and these evils are, to a great extent mitigated .... He did see nothing before the country, if this proposal was rejected ....

Extracts from Speech by A. Shea (Liberal, District of Placentia-St. Mary's), Assembly Debate 9, February 21, 1865. The Newfoundlander, March 2, 1865.

... This measure of Confederation does not belong to the class of untried or novel experiments. All the principal countries of the world are the result of combinations of small states for the purposes of defence, security, and common advancement.... The Union of England and Ireland have been referred to as an example of the injurious effects of combination, and efforts had been made to work on the traditional prejudice which that event had justly inspired, to create a hostile feeling to the present measure. They have read the-history of that transaction to little purpose who assert that it has any features in common with the just terms on which the Confederation of these Colonies is proposed to be formed.... It were idle to enumerate the inequalities and injustice which-marked this connexion [between Ireland and England] which scarcely established any bond but that which exists between the taskmaster and the slave....

What analagy [sic] then ... can be drawn between a Union such as I have correctly described, and the proposed combination of these British North American Provinces where the just rights of all are alike respected, and the conditions of honourable partnership upheld.... Now, if ever a country was so placed as to require the aid of others, it is this colony. With a population of but 13,000 scattered over many hundred miles of sea coast our condition manifestly points to the necessity of co-operation with others whose alliance will give which in our isolated state we cannot attain. We have proved our want of power to effect any object above the ordinary routine. We have seen pauperism setting us at defiance, and all our necessarily feeble efforts have been futile for its correction. We have resources fully adequate to the support of the population, and they remain idle from our inability to place them within the reach of the people, whose condition loudly calls for increased employment. In this position of affairs we present a strong case for the necessity of combination with those-who have the power to aid us, and whose interest it would be to promote our prosperity.... The [Imperial] Government feel that the combination of these Provinces is the condition alone on which they can be upheld in connexion with the mother country, and ln view of all the considerations that surround this grave question, shall we be told it must be dealt with by regard to its effects in adding a half-penny a yard to the price of calico. Can we doubt that the proposed Confederation is the expression of the settled views of British policy, and we may be thankful that when its advent is inevitable, the arrangement itself is one that has the approving testimony of experience ... But he had heard the strange argument advanced, that if we in this colony refuse to unite we shall become a pet Province and the seat of a Naval Station.... [I]t was somewhat novel to find reward waiting on those who pursued a course of senseless contumacy and resistance. Will our refusal to confederate make Halifax less eligible than before in point of geographical position? ....

We deceive ourselves in supposing that we have any value in the eyes of Great Britain that would induce a favourable exceptional policy in our case. It is not with us now as in times of old, when this colony was a nursery for seamen.... England has now no need of us in that respect.... But it is asserted that the British Government never intended that this island should form part of however; is clear on this point against those who offer this objection...

Extracts from Speech by T. Glen (Liberal, District of Ferryland) in House of Assembly, February 22, 1865. The Newfoundlander, March 20 1865.

The tariff that will be introduced into Newfoundland will be the Canadian one, in my opinion a most oppressive tariff .... a high protective tariff, to shut out, if possible, the cheap manufactures of Great Britain, in order to encourage their own manufactures. We want no protective tariff, what we require is to purchase our fishery supplies wherever we can procure them at the cheapest rate, but Canada will not permit us to do so if she can prevent it. ....

Such an attempt I protest against as injurious to the interests of our fishing population, and of our fisheries. It is said the Canadian tariff will be reduced ....In my opinion [it] must be raised higher, to provide for their vast expenditure, they must support a large militia force, build fortifications ...... Then their inter-colonial railroad, reconstructing their canals, costing more millions, besides providing for their future army and navy .... We will have to pay our proportion of all that vast outlay, but we'll receive no benefit whatever from it .... The power of taxing Newfoundland for ever, by all methods and systems; is in my opinion too great a power to give the Canadian Government .... I do not like the idea of being a party to a protective and hostile tariff against Great Britain, our best friends and certainly our only protectors. It does not look well..... Besides, there is the ridicule of the thing, that of submitting to a tariff at the command of Canada, not only hostile to Great Britain; but a protective tariff, "with nothing to protect" ...

I object to being a party to the mischiefs and obstructions of an exploded protective system, Newfoundland having nothing to protect. 0ur annual expenditure, taking the average of the last eight years, is £113,000 stg. The General Government of Canada give us £112,000 stg., so that we have less by £1,000 than the amount required to pay our average expenditure. What a miserable bargain for Newfoundland ....

Now is it fair that we should receive only £112,000 stg. whilst they would collect from us, under the Canadian tariff, at a very moderate calculation, £145,000 stg.? ... It is true, our fisheries have been unsuccessful of late years ....

But it has not been shown by anyone how joining the Confederation wild benefit our fisheries, or how it will relieve the fishermen from their distressed condition. In my opinion, joining the Confederation, on the terms proposed, will add to their distress, by the great increase of taxation, particularly as they will derive no benefit whatever from the additional taxes imposed upon theme as 'the revenue received . . will all be sent off to Canada. ....

We must have better terms, and every reasonable security we ought to have. No promise of what the General Government intend to do should satisfy us. Everything should be put in the New Constitution.... If Newfoundland trusts to promises and fine speeches, we will be looking, in a few years, for another Daniel 0'Connell, ... We must have better terms, not only as to money matters, as we receive nothing in comparison to the amount they will get from us; we should also have the sole control of our fisheries, without any reference [to] the Canadian Government . We should allow no taxes to be imposed on us whatever in Newfoundland. ...The tax on imports we cannot avoid .... But we pay "double per head in Newfoundland" to what they do in Canada of import duties. ....

This is not just or fair. To enter the Confederation on the resolutions agreed to at the Québec conference, would, in my opinion, be ruinous to Newfoundland....

Extracts from Speech by S. March (Conservative, District of Bonavista Bay) in House of Assembly, February 22, 1865. The Newfoundlander, March 20, 1965.

They were bound to this country by the strongest of ties. Their fathers had died to establish its liberty, and he would never consent, while a drop of British blood ran in his veins, to yield up this country, which was one day bound to be the most flourishing on the ocean, to a parcel of Johnny Crapeaus or Dutch Canadians ....

Were we to leave the flag ...; be separated from the glorious Empire of Britain, and placed on a sandy, muddy, rickety foundation? He indignantly protested against any such spoilation of our liberties. Hon. gentlemen call this clap-trap. It was no clap-trap - it was as true as Holy Writ.... [Canada] was now almost insolvent, and wanted to pounce on Newfoundland, like a hungry cat, and seize her teeming wealth - her millions of money, which were annually drawn from her waters, and replenish her own exhausted treasury with it. Was this country to be bartered away for a mess of pottage?...

Extract from Speech by H. T. Moore (Conservative, District of Harbour Grace) in House of Assembly, February 28, 1865. The Newfoundlander, April 17, 1865.

If Confederation would remove the barriers of ice that sometimes block our coast, regulate the winds, and give us more prosperous fisheries, then that would be an advantage. Newfoundland requires free trade, and can we have it to a greater extent by confederation than we have at present? The Canadian markets are as free to us now as we can desire ....

What the trade of Newfoundland requires is that we should be as free to go to the markets of the world as possible, and with as little taxation paid on our imports as practicable, and try to keep foreign markets open to our exports - to endeavour to encourage the people to devote more of their attention to agriculture, which must prove more profitable to the country than Confederation. The prosperity of the country must depend upon the energies of the people, and the resources within themselves, and not on the prosperity of resources of another country. It is patent that the fishermen generally have a reluctance to betake themselves to agriculture, from the very nature of its pursuits being so vastly different from the pursuit of the fisheries . But necessity would show and teach them that it is their best alternative, and from that and other resources he anticipated more effective and permanent relief for the present destitution of a portion of our operative population, than from a union with the other British North American Colonies.

Extracts From Speech by J. Kavanagh (Liberal, District of St. John's East) in House of Assembly, February 28, 1865. The Newfoundlander, April 20, 1865.

But he would ask permission to turn to another question, and ask how Ireland has been under her union with England? Had she gained any benefits by that? How has it fared with that lovely land of the sun, which might be said for its fertility, to be flowing with milk and honey - that land whose sons are brave and its daughters virtuous, who sent forth saints and heroes to instruct man and combat tyrants .... Was Ireland benefited by the union? On the contrary, she lost everything that was dear to her people .... [S]he sank far below the level of a petty province, and is now steeped in misery and want, and her hardy and industrious race deserting her every day, and leaving her green fields a barren waste. All this must be attributed to her union with England. With this fact before our eyes, let us, in the name of everything that is good, retain that great boon which the mother country bestowed on us; and let us look to a kind Providence for better times. Let the people stand firm together; and preserve the freedom and independence of their country....

Top^