After the Journals were read the members of the House who were absent on
Thursday, were sworn in by His Honor
Judge Allan, with the exception of Mr.
Smith, who was still absent.
PROPOSED ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
MR. BOTSFORD said he did not oppose going on with the order of the day,
but he thought it a matter of courtesy
due to the leader of the late Government,
who was unavoidably absent, that the
consideration of the answer to His Excellency's Speech should be postponed until
Monday, He (Mr. Smith) would be here
to-night. Questions may arise during
the discussion which it would be necessary for him to answer, therefore, they
should as a matter of courtesy adjourn the
debate until Monday, particularly as it
has been the usual course to take up this
subject on that day.
Hon. MR. FISHER said he did not
want to take advantage of any one, he did
not see that any discussion would arise
which would affect the leeder of the late
Government. They should press the
business forward as fast as possible.
This was the third day of the Session,
and in short sessions, the address was
generally taken up on the second or third
day. He wished to give notice of a resolution on the subject of Union, and
also to give notice (in the absence of the
Provincial Secretary) of supply. The
public business of the country requires
His Excellency to go up the River on
military matters next week ; they therefore could not delay the consideration of
this address. He would put it to the
House, whether the Government would be
justified in doing so. He could not consent to this delay, and he hoped they
would not be considered uncourteous in
pressing on the business of the country.
MR. KERR said that he observed in
the journals of 1857 that the House met
on Wednesday the 24th of June, attended
to the routine of business, elected a
Speaker, and on the 25th of June at 2
o'clock they presented the address in
answer to the Speech.
The motion was then carried, after
which His Honor
the SPEAKER read
part of the proposed address, when—
MR. BOTSFORD remarked that there
had been a slight alteration in the phraseology. He did not know by what parliamentary
rule an address was altered after
it had been published and laid upon the
table. If any alterations were necessary,
the members of the House should have
8 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
been apprised of it, and they should have
been made with the Speaker in the chair.
His Honor
the SPEAKER said the
time to make those observations would be
when the address was read by paragraph.
When this was done he hoped his honorable friend would be able to state the
character of the alterations that had been
made.
The address was then read, after which
upon motion of
Mr. Kerr it was read by
paragraph. The first paragraph passed
unanimously. Upon the reading of the
second paragraph—
MR. BOTSFORD said he did not rise
to move any formal amendment for he did
not wish to make any factious opposition.
What he had to say would not occupy
much time. 'There are several paragraphs
in the Speech to which he could not as a
member of the late Government assent.
He would connect the second, third, and
fourth together in order to avoid a Speech
upon them separately, and thereby not
take up so much of the time of the House
when members were anxious to get
through with the business as quickly as
possible. In reading the address we find
it stated that,—
2. We learn with pleasure that Her
Majesty the Queen graciously received
the Address of the Legislative Council, on
the subject of the Union of the British
North American Provinces, transmitted to
England by Your Excellency.
3. We agree with Your Excellency
that the adoption and reception by Your
Excellency, for transmission to Her Majesty, of this Address on the subject of
the Union, led to events which rendered
it expedient to dissolve the late General
Assembly, and we believe that the Constituencies of the Province have justified
the course adopted by Your Excellency.
Although it is an inconvenient season of
the year for the discharge of Legislative
duties, we will cheerfully. co-operate with
Your Excellency in the transaction of
such business and the perfecting of such
measures as the public interest demands.
These two paragraphs refer principally to the Address of the Legislative
Council and its reception by Her Majesty the Queen, and to the inconvenient
season of the year at which the House
had been called together. After viewing
what took place during the last sitting
of the Legislature which was familiar
to most of them ; he could not say he
was pleased that the Address of the Legislative Council had been transmitted
to Her Majesty the Queen. Although he
did not deny the right of the Legislative Council to express an opinion in reference
to the Quebec Scheme, or to
any kind of Union, if they thought proper ; yet he believed they transcended
their powers when they prayed Her Majesty to pass an Imperial Act on this
question without any reference to the
action of the Lower House. These
were the views which he expressed to his
constituents, and he was bound to express them here. The third paragraph
goes on to say that the proceedings
which took place led to a dissolution of
the House. It was admitted by His Excellency that his late advisers were not
consulted ; as an excuse for this, he says
it was a matter of accident. He (Mr.
Botsford) held that His Excellency's
not consulting with his advisers was
subversive of their Provincial Constitution. His not having done so, caused
the resignation of his advisers. Another part in that paragraph he could
not assent to was: "We believe the
constituencies of the Province have justified the course adopted by Your Excellency."
That is not correct. It does
not state a majority of the constituencies, but includes the whole ; therefore
it states what cannot be substantiated,
for the Counties of Westmorland, Gloucester and Kent have not justified the
course pursued by His Excellency.
The fourth paragraph says;—
4. We know that Her Majesty's Government have expressed a strong and
deliberate opinion that the union of the
British North American Provinces is an
object much to be desired, and that the
Legislature of Canada and Nova Scotia
concur in this view, and Your Excellency may rely with confidence on our cordial co-operation
in any measure which
may be proposed to secure that object.
Take that answer without any reference to the Speech, and it would not
be so very objectionable ; but when they
compared it with the paragraph in the
Speech, it was not consistent, and he
could not sustain it. The paragraph in
the Speech says :—
Her Majesty's Government have already expressed their strong and deliberate opinion, that the Union of the British North American Provinces under
one Government is an object much to
be desired. The Legislatures of Canada
and of Nova Scotia have formed the
same judgment ; and you will now shortly
be invited to express your concurrence
with or dissent from the view taken of
this great question by those Provinces.
The answer, taken in connection with
that paragraph, not only binds us to concur in the mode by which that resolution in
favor of Union was accomplished
in Nova Scotia ; but it goes further, and
binds us to assent to any measure which
may be proposed to secure that object.
He was not prepared to assent to that
doctrine. The mode by which it was accomplished in Nova Scotia was not constitutional.
It may be urged on the
other side that the people are represented by the House of Assembly. This, as
a general principle, may be correct, but
when you find that the constitution of a
country is to be altered, and those mem
bers who have passed upon it were elected by the constituencies of Nova Scotia
before it was even thought of, you must
say that it is not a correct principle to
act upon in that case. When they presume to alter the constitution without
giving the people a voice in it, we are
going beyond our duty and powers to
confirm it. He could not see upon what
ground they were asked to strengthen
the position of a party in a sister colony.
These were the reasons why he opposed
the passage of those three paragraphs,
and he would call a division upon each
of them.
MR. JOHNSON said he was astonished that a professional man with the standing of his learned friend
from Westmorland would talk of the Legislative Council exceeding their constitutional
rights
when they addressed the Crown, and
asked for Imperial legislation upon this
question. Does he mean to say that
they have not the right to ask for Imperial legislation ? Does he mean to say
the Imperial Legislature would take action on the subject without our concurrence
? They ask for this legislation,
presuming that the people would also
ask. My hon. friend says they transcended their duty. What rights have this
House more than the Upper House, except the initiation of money grants ? Let
us trace the origin of the House of Commons. It was first originated in 1269,
and in 1295 the Lords and Commons sat
in the same room and voted together,
and it took majority of both Houses together to carry a measure. They were
not seperate branches at all. If we deny
the rights of the Upper House, we might
as well abolish it altogether. The
House of Lords has been a protection to
the country, and their rights are the same
se the rights of the Lower House, except
the initiation of money grants. When
the tariff increased with the increase of
trade and commerce, the interests of the
people became a source of revenue, and
the House of Commons claimed this right
and it was assented to. For many years
previously the Lords and the Commons
each granted their subsidies upon the
property over which they had control.
For a long time after this right was given
up, the House of Lords maintained their
right to alter and amend bills of that
kind, but finally this right was also given
up. The House of Lords has now no
right to alter or amend those bills, but
simply to accept or reject them. He
called npon his hon. friend, as a lawyer
and a statesman, to point out in the history of their country any rights possessed
by the House of Commons, further than
has been stated, that were different from
those possessed by the House of Lords.
They each have the right to originate
bills. A bill was originated in our Upper
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 9
House to alter the representation of our
country. This was a bill which they had
no interest in. They sent it down here,
and there was no objection raised To its
reception. This House received that
bill, and it was read a first and second
time. No member asked to have it laid
before the Committee on Privileges. The
reason the question was not taken upon
t was because it came in so late in the
Session that there was no time to take it
up. If they had rejected or amended
the bill, it would not have been because
the Legislative Council had no right to
bring it in, for having received it, they
had admitted this right. The House of
Lords has introduced some of the most
important measures in Britain, and this
is done in the face of the House of
Commons, and contrary to their opinions
and the opinions of the Ministry of the
day. He would mention a case. During
the revolutionary war the Ministry came
down with their Speech, and declared they
would carry out that war vigorously to
the end, and the House of Commons expressed their opinion that the war should
be carried on. The Earl of Chatham
moved, right in the face of the Ministry
and the House of Commons. to discontinue the war. We find the rights of the
Lords and Commons are co-equal. Why,
then does my hon. friend say they have
not the same rights which we have ? Do
not the same rules govern us that govern
the Imperial Parliament ? In all the
other Provinces of the proposed Union
their Legislative Councils have been the
first to act upon it, long before the House
of Assemblies of the various Colonies
took it up at all. If his hon. friend denied this right to exist, he would ask
him at what particular year or century
this change was made. If he cannot
answer this, he must admit that the
right still exists. He objects to this
paragraph :—
" We learn with pleasure that Her Majesty the Queen graciously renewed the
address of the Legislative Council on the
subject of the Union of the British
North American Provinces transmitted
to England by Your Excellency."
If the Legislative Council have a
right to pass an address, are we not gratified to learn that Her Majesty has
been graciously pleased to receive that
address. He (Mr. Botsford) says he
cannot agree to adopt the third paragraph in the address, because it includes
the manner of His Excellency's consulting with his advisers. This is an important
matter, for there are many instances of the Lieutenant Governor's
consulting with the leader of the Government instead of all the members of
the Council. He says His Excellency's
not consulting with his advisers was
unconstitutional. We know that the
House as returned was directly opposed
to Union in every respect. Suppose
the people had changed and His Excellency's advisers had not ; was it not
right that he should take new advisers,
who would adopt his views and take the
responsibility ? He did so, and his advisers took the responsibility of dissolving
the House, and the verdict of the
people was an approval of their course.
My hon. friend says the constituencies of
the Province did not justify the course
adopted by His Excellency, but only a
majority of them, and therefore the paragraph states what cannot be substantiated.
When we pass a resolution in
this House by a majority of the members, it is a resolution of the House and
not a resolution of a majority of the
House, and the same parallel holds good
in regard to the constituencies of the
Province.
This course adopted by His Excellency
led to events which rendered it expedient to dissolve the House. Was it expedient
that the eleven constituencies
that were in favor of Union should remain governed by the voice of the three
that were opposed to this measure? If
the House of Assembly had not been dissolved the majority of the people would
have been misrepresented by a majority
of the members of the House, who did
not express their views on this question.
Will he (Mr. Botsford) contend that the
rights of the people were endangered by
this dissolution? It was the duty of His
Excellency's advisers to see that the
majority of the people were properly
represented, and to do that they must
dissolve the House. The people had
been hastily called upon to express an
opinion upon a great question, and they
did so ; but they had since changed their
views, and an opportunity was given
them to send men here to represent their
changed views. This was not endangering the rights of the people. Could any
Government be justified in saying, we
will keep you here for three years longer,
for if we dissolve the House we are taking away your rights.
In regard to the fourth paragraph he
(Mr. Botsford) says we are called upon
here to express an opinion of approval
or disapproval of the manner in which
the resolution in favor of Union was carried in Nova Scotia. We are not called
upon to do anything of the kind ; we are
not called upon to decide whether they
took the proper course in deciding upon
this measure without submitting it to
the people. If he (Mr. Johnson) was
asked to say whether it was a constitutional course or not, he should say it
was. The representatives of the people
are sent here to exercise their judgment
and think for the people, without going
back to the people upon every matter
which comes before them. In the Imperial Parliament all those important
measures, like the repeal of the Corn
Laws, have been decided without any
reference to the people. In the same
manner alterations have been made in
the Constitution of Great Britain. This
Constitution is not the same as it was in
the time of William III. There was no
such thing as responsible Government
in that day. It has been again and again
altered and improved. It has been sufficiently yielding to admit of those improvements,
which have been rendered
necessary by the increase of commerce,
and sufficiently strong to prevent its
bursting up as other countries have
done. The representatives of the people
in Nova Scotia have a constitutional
right to act as they have done. and we
are not asked to say whether they have
done or right or wrong, for it is a matter
which they must settle among themselves. We are simply asked to say : do
we approve of what they have done?
and we are not asked to say whether we
approve of how they did it. If they have
done what we conceive to be right, we
can well say that we approve of the substance of the resolutions, without expressing
an opinion as to the manner or
mode in which those resolutions were
carried ; therefore my hon. friend (Mr.
Botsford) is not called upon to commit
himself in that matter at all. There are
a few words in the third paragraph he
(Mr. Johnson) thought it would be as
well to strike out. The section which
says: " Your Excellency may rely with
confidence on our cordial co-operation
in any measure which may be proposed
to accomplish that object." He (Mr.
Johnson) thought that was asking too
much from the House. It would preclude them from asking for any alterations in any
measure proposed. He
would suggest that they leave out the
words, " in any measure which may be
proposed." The section would then read,
" Your Excellency may rely with confidence on our cordial cooperation to
accomplish that object."
MR. YOUNG said he still believed, as
he did at the close of the last session,
that the course pursued by the Legislative Council, in passing a resolution
for a Union based upon the Quebec
Scheme, thereby endeavoring to force
upon the people a measure the people
had rejected twelve months before, was
wrong. He should, therefore, vote
against the second and third paragraphs,
but if the fourth paragraph was amended
as proposed, he might vote for it. He
had been sustained by a large majority
of his constituents in the position he took
in reference to the conduct of the Government, and in reference to the Upper
Branch of the Legislature. He was
satisfied the address would pass without
any amendment, by at least four-fifths
of the members of the House, therefore
he would say nothing further on the
subject, but would content himself with
voting against those paragraphs in the
address.
10 DEBATE OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
MR. CAIE said it was not his wish or
inclination to show any factious opposition to the Government. In the first
place it would be useless to do so. In
the second place it would occupy too
much time at this season ot the year,
when time is so valuable. In the third
place, he had not conceit enough in any
arguments which he might use to convince the minds of the members on the
floors of the House. He would, therefore, merely express his dissent from
that paragraph which says :
" We learn with pleasure that Her
Majesty the Queen graciously received of
the Legislative Council," &c.
Representing as he did a constituency
of 16,000 inhabitants, three-fourths of
whom are what are called "Anties,"
he felt himself called upon to enter an
unqualified disapprobation to the passing
of that paragraph, and he trusted a division of the House, showing our opinions
on the matter, will be taken.
MR. STEVENS said he was glad
to embrace the opportunity of raising his voice against the assertion
made against the Legislative Council,
that they represented nobody but themselves. The Constitution of Great
Britain has received the plaudits of all
writers of history. The reason of this
is, because of the admirable checks
which one branch has upon another.
We should, therefore, endeavor to prevent the usefulness of the Upper Branch
being done away with by any remarks
calculated to bring them, as an independent Branch, into contempt. It has
been urged by one hon. gentleman, that
the Legislative Council was endeavoring
to force upon the people a scheme which
they had previously rejected, and because the scheme had been once rejected
the people never ought to have another
opportunity of expressing an opinion
upon it. They were prepared to meet
this constitutional question in all its
bearings. The action of the Lieutenant
Governor was strictly constitutional in
all its details. There was no endeavor
to subvert the constitution or to force
upon the people a scheme that they did
not wish. The Legislative Council cannot carry anything into effect without
the concurrence of the other branches.
They did as they were asked to do by the
Imperial Government, and in consequence of doing that they brought matters to an issue,
which caused the resignation of a Government that had been
in power long enough, and this was
proved by the result of the elections.
The country knew when His Excellency
returned from England that there was
something to be done to bring the subject of Union prominently before the
people. We now find that the subject of
Union was to have been brought before
the people by the despatches which were
to be laid before the House. If we look
at the correspondence which took place
upon the resignation of the Government,
we will find that His Excellency was
willing to bring this about through the
agency of the Government, so that it
could be carried out without a party
triumph. This showed great delicacy
on the part of His Excellency. This
subject of Union was mentioned in the
speech from the throne, and the Legislative Council presented an address in answer
to the speech, the reply to which
was endorsed by the Government and
couched in the same language in which
afterwards His Excellency replied to
their address on the subject of Union.
The found fault because that reply was not communicated to the Government as
a body, and in consequence of this they
said it was not a constitutional act of the
Governor. Why, he would ask, was it
necessary for the Governor to do that
when it was but a second copy of what
they had already endorsed and approved
of ? Where was the unconstitutionality
of this act of His Excellency ? It was a
mere matter of form, and they could not
go to the country and ask them to decide
on a mere matter of form.
A division was then taken upon the
second paragraph in the address.
Yeas—Messrs. Fisher, McMillan, Williston, Connell, Kerr, Stevens, Beveridge,
Lewis, Hibbard, Herbert, Johnson, Dow,
Beckwith, Thompson, Perley, Babbit
Ryan, J. Flewwelling, W. P. Flewwelling,
Ferris, MeClelan, McAdam, Sutton,
Wilmot, Chandler, DesBrisay, Glasier,
—27.
Nays—Messrs. Botsford, Meahan,
Landry. McInerny, Caie, McQueen,
Young—7.
The third and fourth paragraphs passed
each with the same division that was
taken apon the second, and the remaining paragraphs passed unanimously.
MR. KERR moved that the address be
engrossed and signed by His Honor the
Speaker, and presented to His Excellency by the whole House.
This resolution was adopted, and a
Committee appointed to wait upon His
Excellency to know when he would be
pleased to receive the House therewith.
On motion of
HON. MR. FISHER, the
following resolution was made the order
of the day for Tuesday.
Resolved. That an humble address be
presented to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, praying that His Excellency will
be pleased to appoint delegates
to unite with delegates from the other
Provinces in arranging with the Imperial Government for the Union of
British North America upon such terms
as will secure the just rights and interests of New Brunswick, accompanied
with a provision for the immediate construction of the Inter-Colonial Railway, each
Province to have an equal voice in
such delegation, Upper and Lower
Canada to be considered as separate
Provinces.
On motion of
Mr. FISHER, 200 copies
of this resolution were ordered to be
printed.
On motion of Hon. Mr. WILLISTON,
a Bill relating the administration of
Justice in Equity, was referred to a
Select Committee to report thereon.
EMPLOYMENT OF COACHES.
MR. DOW said there were three
coaches employed by the House. He
found that a Resolution was passed in
1865 taking this matter out of the hands
of the Contingent Committee, and placing
it in the hands of the House. He would
move this Resolution :—
Resolved—"That two coaches be employed for the use of this House."
MR. DESBRISAY moved an amendment " that one coach be employed for the
use of Committees going to the Government House only."
MR. JOHNSON said that would be to
reserve one coach for that purpose.
MR. DESBRISAY observed that it was
necessary to have a coach for that purpose, but the members could walk to
their lodgings.
MR. DOW said he should be perfectly
satisfied with that.
MR. DESBRISAY altered his amendment specifying that only one coach
should be employed and that for the use
of Committees.
MR. RYAN thought they had best withdraw the resolution and amendment, and
leave the matter in the hands of the Contingent Committee, and let them make
such arrangement for coaches as they
saw fit.
MR. JOHNSON said the Contingent
Committee was appointed only with regard to these expenses of which they
could not tell the amount. The Government or the Contingent Committee have
no power to appoint the coaches. It is a
matter for the House to deal with, and the
House cannot employ them until it is organized. The members of the House
can require your honor to give give directions
to the Seargant-at-arms to employ them.
MR. RYAN said they could delegate
the power to a Committee if they saw fit.
It did not matter to him how they settled
it, but he thought one or two coaches
were sufficient.
MR. JOHNSON took the position that
the Government or a Contingent Committee had nothing to do with those appointments
; nothing should be left to a
Contingent Committee that could be put
down as items. The House should act for
itself.
MR. YOUNG said the course pursued
last year was to leave the matter in the
hands of the Speaker. He thought if the
House desired to employ two coaches
they should leave it in the hands of a
Committee.
MR. SUTTON said they had better
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 11
employ them by tender, or instruct the
Seargeant-at-Arms to employ them. He
thought on coach quite sufficient to
carry Committees to the Government
House.
MR. BOTSFORD said he understood
the Government had taken upon themselves to dismiss a coachman, and if they
have taken the dismissal they have taken
the appointment. He would ask if any
coaches had been dismissed by the Government. The coaches which were appointed last
Session continued in their
attendance upon the House until they
they were dismissed.
Hon. MR. FISHER said his hon. friend
had better not speak of Government appointments. The door-keeper was appointed through
the Sergeant-at-Arms by
the late Government. Mr. Atherton's
coach had been employed by the House,
but last year it was dismissed and another coach employed in its place.
MR. BOTSFORD—The door-keeper
died, and the present door-keeper was
appointed by the Government in order to
have an efficient officer there.
Hon. MR. FISHER said it was no difference to him whether they employed
one coach or two, they had always employed two, and two would still continue
in attendance. He did not wish to see
the main question blinked, which was,
whether Mr. Atherton or Mr. Peters
should have one of these coaches. Mr.
Atherton was appointed in 1857, and furnished good coaches and accomodated
the members. He held this appointment
until the general election preceding this.
He took ground against the then Government, and the House turned him out and
appointed Mr. Peters. When our friends
have been removed from office for the
course which they have taken during the
election, it is but common justice that we
should restore them. Mr. Atherton was
removed for simply voting for us at the
election, and it was now their duty to restore him to his situation. These were
his reasons for the appointment of Mr.
Artherton, but neither the resolution and
amendment made provision for it. He
did not wish the coaches for himself for
he had a carriage of his own. The man
who was appointed now would retain the
situation during the next four years, and
during the winter season they had a great
deal of stormy weather. The salary was
a small matter, the members made more
excitement about it then the people did
themselves. The people are willing that
every convenience should be provided for
their representatives, and all they require
of them in return is that they shall discharge their duty to the best of their
ability.Â
Mr. CHANDLER said the simple
question was did they require two coaches
or not. If two coaches were necessary
they should have them. Mr. Atherton
was appointed in 1857 and had performed
his duties with kindness and attention.
lf he has been removed by the late Government for any well-founded charge they
should not employ him, but if he has been
removed on political grounds he should
be reinstated.
MR. BOTSFORD said the late Government did not displace or reinstate
either Mr. Atherton or Mr. Peters. It
was the House that did it. The Government have no power to displace
them, and he supposed that was the
reason that Mr. Peters was not displaced. He (Mr. Peters) was employed
by the House, but he did not know whether it was from political motives or not.
MR. McADAM would vote against the
resolution, if adopting it would prevent
them from re-instating Mr. Atherton,
who had been displaced for political reasons.
HON. MR. WILLISTON thought the
hon. members did not understand the
matter before the House. In 1865 the
question was brought before the House
whether the Speaker should employ the
coaches. The Speaker declined, and a
resolution was submitted to the House to
authorize the Contingent Committee to
employ them. Mr. Peters had been
coachman for the Executive Council and
Mr. Atherton for the House of Assembly.
They tried to do justice to all parties.
They recommended that Mr. Peters
should be employed as coachman to the
House, as he had formerly served in that
capacity, and they thought they were doing no injustice to Mr. Atherton, for he had
large contracts under the Government. They also employed Mr. Turner, and these two
coachmen did the duty. He could bear testimony to the efficiency of Mr. Atherton,
but he thought the Government should not have this patronage. He had a strong feeling
in reference to the displacement of officers. He hoped that the day had gone by when
the officers could be removed except on good substantial grounds. So long as a man
is doing his duty to his country, so long should he continue in office. If, on the
other hand, a man holding an office under the Government becomes a partizan, he should
be removed. The question of whether Mr. Peters or Mr. Atherton be employed had better
be referred to the Contingent Committee, and let them investigate it fairly and fully.
MR. JOHNSON said they should not place the patronage of the House in the hands of the Contingent
Committee. They might just as well delegate it to the Committee on Privileges. If
the House would place it in the hands of His Honor the Speaker, he would agree to
it, but not to placing it in the hands of a Committee of that kind. According to the
amendment, the coaches would not be
confined to members going to the Government House, but the Contingent Committee, or
any other Committee of the
House would have the right to use them,
while His Honor the Speaker would not.
MR. STEVENS said the question was
whether they should have two coaches or
one. The amendment says we shall only
have one. This will not be sufficient to
accommodate all the members who require coaches. He would vote for two
coaches, which was the number they usually employed. The time spent in discussing
this subject costs more than the employment of the coaches.
MR. BECKWITH moved, as an amendment, " that George Atherton and John
Turner be coachmen to this House."
This amendment was then adopted—
yeas 17, nays l2.
The Committee appointed to wait upon
His Excellency reported that the Governor would receive the Address of the
House at 5 o'clock.
HON. MR. FISHER brought in "A Bill
to provide for the prompt payment of all
demands upon the Provincial Treasury."
Cet individu a participé aux :
