LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
FRIDAY, February 3, 1865.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said the
Speaker having desired that he should not go
on with the Address about the union of the
colonies, he proposed not to take it up till
Monday next, but as the matter was one of
the utmost importance, he thought it would
be well now to settle the mode of conducting
the discussion. He would propose that after
the discussion commenced, it should continue
day after day, and that for the purpose of
greater regularity the Speaker should remain
in the chair. At the same time he would
propose that the rule which prevented members speaking more than once when the Speaker
was in the chair should be suspended, in
order that every member might have the same
liberty of free discussion as he would have in
Committee of the Whole.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD said the Attorney General's proposition that discussion
should continue day after day, was one which,
in his opinion, ought not to be entertained by
the House. This was a very grave question,
and he thought the people of this country had
a right to consider maturely the sentiments
promulgated by their representatives with regard to it. He was sorry, therefore, to
have
heard it announced by the Attorney General
that the Government were to hurry the measure through, to the exclusion of all other
matters.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said he had
not stated this. His idea was that after the
debate commenced it should go on each day
after half-past seven, leaving the afternoon sitting for other business. If the discussion
was to
be confined to government days, the debate of
Tuesday would be forgotten by Friday, the
same arguments would be gone over, and they
would sit the whole year round to finish it.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD said other
changes of no less importance than this, with
reference to Clergy Reserves, Legislative Council, Seignorial Tenure, &c., had been
before
the people for a quarter of a century, and fully
discussed session after session before being
finally disposed of. Public opinion in that
way was fully matured on these questions, but
here they were called on at a few days' notice
to change entirely the Constitution we lived
under, and time was not to be allowed for
public opinion to be expressed on it. He objected also to the suspension of the rules
of
Parliament, so as to make the discussion take
14
place with the Speaker in the chair, instead of
in Committee of the Whole. If there was any
question on which the House should adhere to
its forms, it was a question like this—when
the Government was so strong, so outrageously
strong—(laughter)—the minority should be
protected by the rules of the House being
fully maintained. He observed the President
of the Council laugh. He had learned a good
deal from that gentleman in standing up for
the rules of the House. But now, forsooth,
the lion and lamb were lying together, and the
Government, knowing that they had it in their
power, were now to carry the measure through
by brute force—the force of the majority.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said there
was nothing irregular in his proposing that
discussion should go on with the Speaker
in the chair. The suspension of the rules he
proposed was for the protection of the minority, by allowing each member to speak
and
state his objections as often as he pleased.
HON. J. H. CAMERON approved of the
proposition that discussion be conducted with
the Speaker in the chair. With reference to
the other proposition that it should go on from
day to day, he suggested that after Attorney
General MACDONALD had stated his views at
length on Monday, the debate should be adjourned for at least one week, that people
in
the country might have the views of the Government fully before them, before the debate
fairly commenced. After that it might go on
day after day.
HON. MR. HOLTON said he had not
regarded the Attorney General's proposition
in exactly the same light as the member for
Cornwall, but was willing to accept it as indicating a desire on the part of the Government
to afford facilities for a full and free discussion.
He thought, however, it would be advantageous if, after the general discussion took
place
with the Speaker in the chair, the House went
into Committee of the Whole, to consider the
details. He thought three days in the week
sufficient for the discussion.
HON. MR. BROWN said the member for
Chateauguay had rightly apprehended the
object of the Attorney General when he treated
his proposition as dictated by a desire to afford
the fullest opportunity of discussing this great
question. Nothing could be further from
their intention than to hurry the measure
through by brute force, as charged by the
member for Cornwall. Although the Attorney
General had proposed that the discussion
should continue day after day, he had not
suggested for a moment that the whole should
be hurried on ; the debate at any period
might be adjourned, if deemed necessary, to
allow time for the expression of public opinion.
There were 130 members, and almost every
member would desire to speak on the question,
and he thought clearly the proper course was
to devote every day after half-past seven to
the discussion, to allow all the members on
both sides to state their views, that they might
go to the country and be fully considered.
He thought there was a good deal of force in
the suggestion of the member for Peel, that
after the views of the Government had been
stated distinctly to the House the debate should
be adjourned for a short time. Of course the
Attorney General East, as well as the Attorney
General West, would desire to explain the
scheme from his point of view, so would the
Minister of Finance ; and probably he also (Mr.
BROWN) from his own particular stand point
would like to say something about the scheme.
After the views of the Government had thus
been put before the House, there could be no
difficulty about adjourning the debate for a
time, that the country might distinctly understand what they were about.
Mr. POWELL asked whether the House
was expected to adopt the scheme in its
entirety, or would it be open to the House to
adopt one portion of it and reject another
portion of it ?
MR. POWELL thought Mr. Holton's regard for fair play excessive, when it even impelled him to
interfere on behalf of the Administration.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said he agreed
that Mr. Cameron's proposition was a reasonable one. The Government would, in the
first
place, lay their case before the House, and
through the press before the country, and
then allow a reasonable time for the country
to judge of the case as presented by the Government. It would not, of course, be presented
by himself alone, as the President of
the Council had said. The subject was so
large in itself and comprehended so great a
variety of details, that he fancied all the members of the Government would find it
necessary
to express their views on particular portions
of this great scheme. In answer to the member for Carleton, the Government desired
to
15
say that they presented the scheme as a whole,
and would exert all the influence they could
bring to bear in the way of argument to induce the House to adopt the scheme without
alteration, and for the simple reason that the
scheme was not one framed by the Government
of Canada, or by the Government of Nova
Scotia, but was in the nature of a treaty set
tled between the different colonies, each clause
of which had been fully discussed, and which
had been agreed to by a system of mutual
compromise. Of course it was competent to
the House to vote against the Address as a
whole, or to adopt amendments to it, but if
they did so, it would then be for the Government to consider whether they would press
the
scheme further on the attention of the House.
It was obvious that unless the scheme were
adopted as it had been settled between the
different provinces, if they prosecuted it further, they would have to commence
de novo,
and he had no hesitation in expresing his belief that if the scheme was not now adopted
in
all its principal details, as presented to the
House, we could not expect to get it passed
this century. It had been only in consequence of a very happy concurrence of circumstances,
which might not easily arise
again, that the different provinces had been
enabled to arrive at the conclusion now
presented, and he should exceedingly regret
in the interests of Canada and of the future
of British North America, if anything should
delay beyond this year the completion and
conclusion of this great scheme. The resolutions on their face bore evidence of compromise
; perhaps not one of the delegates from
any of the provinces would have propounded
this scheme as a whole, but being impressed
with the conviction that it was highly desirable with a view to the maintenance of
British
power on this continent that there should be
Confederation and a junction of all the provinces, the consideration of the details
was
entered upon in a spirit of compromise. Not
one member of the Canadian Government had
his own views carried out in all the details,
and it was the same with the other delegates.
But after a full discussion of sixteen days, and
after the various details had been voted on,
the resolutions as a whole were agreed to by
a unanimous vote ; every one of the delegates,
whatever his view to any of the details,
being satisfied to adopt the whole scheme as
adopted by a majority for each individual resolution, and to press it upon his own
Legislature as the only practicable scheme that
could be carried ; such being the case, he
trusted the Government would have the support of a very large majority of the House
in
carrying the scheme just as it stood, members sacrificing their individual opinions
as to
particular details, if satisfied with the Government that the scheme as a whole was
for the
benefit and prosperity of the people of Canada.
HON. MR. HOLTON would like to inquire
whether, according to the course of proceeding proposed by the Attorney General, the
several resolutions of the Conference would be
submitted separately to the House as affirmative propositions ?
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said " no."
The proposition submitted to the House is
that an Address be presented to Her Majesty,
praying that a bill should be passed based on
these resolutions. All amendments might be
moved to that one resolution. It would be
the same thing, in fact, as to move them upon
each resolution separately.
HON. MR. HOLTON held that the Government ought to ask for an affirmative vote from
the House on each of these resolutions. They
had been prepared and passed by a self-constituted body, without the House or the
people
ever having been consulted on the subject.
Unless the House were a sham altogether,
the least reference that could be paid to it
would be to obtain a direct affirmation of each
of the basis on which the projected Constitution which was hereafter to govern us
were
to be founded.
HON. MR. CAUCHON wished information
as to whether the scheme was to be discussed
as a whole, or whether there would be an opportunity given to consider each part of
it
separately ? There were part of the resolutions about which there might be some misunderstanding
and difference of opinion, as
for example those clauses by one of which it
was stated that the civil laws of the country
were to be under the control of the local
governments, and by the other of which the
law of marriage was placed under the control
of the General Government. The law of marriage pervaded the whole civil code, and
he
wanted to know how it could be placed under
a different legislature from that which was to
regulate the rest of the civil law. He did
not, however, see why an affirmative vote on
each resolution would enable the House to
pronounce with more freedom on these details
than the course proposed by the Attorney
General.
HON. A. A. DORION said the member for
Montmorency misapprehended the scope of the
objection made by the member for Chateau
16guay. That objection was that the freedom
of Parliament would be better consulted, and
more opportunity would be given to learn the
sense of the House by the different clauses of
the Address being moved
seriatim, in the same
way as supplies were voted. This was the
manner in which the Irish Union Act had
been passed, as well as the bill to change the
Government of India, the Canadian Union Act
of 1840, Legislative Council Act, and other
important measures. This was the uniform
course of Parliament, and there was no precedent to be found for an contrary mode
of
proceeding. He thought the course proposed
on the Opposition side of the House the most
reasonable—that there should be a general discussion on the scheme, in which Members
of
the Government should state their views ; that
then there should be an adjournment for a
week to enable the public to consider these
speeches, and that then the subject should be
discussed three whole days each week till disposed of. This would, in fact, be devoting
more time to it than the plan that was proposed by the President of the Council, and
would secure more fair, open and full opportunity for discussion.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD could understand the object of the hon. member for
Hochelaga. That hon. gentleman was opposed to Confederation, and the course he proposed
was just that which was calculated to
throw the scheme to another Parliament and
till another conference was held, so that Confederation might not be effected till
the day of
judgment. These resolutions were in the nature of a treaty, and if not adopted in
their
entirety, the proceedings would have to be
commenced
de novo. If each province undertook to change the details of the scheme, there
would be no end to the discussions and the
conferences which would have to be held.Then, as to having a debate three days a week,
it would extend the session beyond all bounds,
especially as after the Confederation scheme
was disposed of, there would be a measure for
organizing the local governments under that
scheme.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said that they
were two different propositions, and they could
be only dealt with separately. If the House
declared, by its vote, that Confederation was
desirable, then it would be proper to consider
the nature of the local governments ; but if it
failed to accept the principle of Confederation,
then it would be entirely useless to bring up
the other measure. Besides, to bring down
both measures at once would make confusion
worse confounded, because members would, of
necessity, introduce their views upon local
governments into the consideration of the Conederation question.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD commented upon the declaration that the resolutions of the Conference were tantamount
to
a treaty, and asked by what authority the
Government had undertaken to negotiate a
treaty. He contended that all forms of the
House should be strictly observed, so that
there should be no infringement upon the
rights of the minority.
MR. THOMAS FERGUSON asked whether it was the intention of the Government to
carry this measure into force without submitting it to the peopele ?
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said he could
answer his honorable friend at once. If this
measure received the support of the House,
there would be no necessity of going to the
people. If, however, the measure were defeated, it, would be for the Government to
consider whether there should not be an appeal to the country. (Hear, hear, and laughter.
MR. SCATCHERD asked whether it was
intended to make any amendments in the
scheme to meet the suggestions contained. in
the despatch of the Colonial Secretary.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD, in reply,
said of course he could not answer what the
policy of the Imperial Government might be ;
all he could say was this, that the representatives of the various colonial governments,
after this treaty had been made, agreed to go
home and press upon the legislatures of their
respective provinces this measure as a whole,
and to present in all the colonial legislatures
addresses identical in their nature to Her
Majest , asking Her to pass an Act based
upon these resolutions, such address being an
expression of the deliberate opinion of the
colonies. It would then become the duty of
the Imperial Government and Legislature to
act as they pleased in the matter. He hoped
and believed they would not make any alterations in the scheme adopted by the Conference.
He was quite satisfied that if the local
legislatures asked them to pass the scheme as
it stood, they would leave us to be the best
judges of our own affairs and carry the measure through.
HON. MR. HOLTON said he had given
notice the other day of three questions he intended to put to the Government before
going
l7
into Committee of Supply, but as the present
was an equally favorable opportunity, he
trusted there would be no objection to his putting them now.
HON. MR. HOLTON said the first question
had a reference to the subject to which the
Attorney General had alluded in the course of
his remarks just now. It was, whether it was
the intention of the Government to bring down
their projects for local constitutions for the
two sections of Canada before inviting the
House to proceed with the discussion of this
question of Confederation. The honorable
gentleman had already answered that question
by saying it was not the intention of the Government to introduce this measure, and
had
given reasons for this course. Upon these
reasons he (Hon. Mr. HOLTON) desired to say
one word. He maintained that the question now
before the House was, should they revolutionize the country, should they revolutionize
the government of the country ? (Hear,
hear.) That was undoubtedly the question,
and he would like to know distinctly whether
the form of the proposed new government,
local as well as general, formed part of the
same scheme ? He felt that the House could
not be in a position to consider the proposed
forms of the Constitution until they had before
them, at least in a general way, the forms of
government which were to obtain between the
two sections of the province, of the union of
which a dissolution was to be wrought by the
measure before the House. Then another
question which he had proposed to put had
reference to the educational system of Lower
Canada. The Minister of Finance, in a speech
at Sherbrooke, had promised that the Government would introduce a bill to amend the
school laws of Lower Canada. The honorable
gentleman must be aware that this was a
question on which there was a great deal of
feeling in this section of the province amongst
the English-speaking, or the Protestant class,
of the population. He did not like to introduce
anything of a religious character into discussions of this House, but in debating
the great
changes which it was proposed to effect in our
system of government, the effect of them upon
that class to which he referred must be considered. Among that class there was no
phase
or feature of these threatened changes which
excited so much alarm as this very question of
education. Well, the Minister of Finance
had said, with great solemnity, as having the
authority of his colleagues for it, that this
session the Government would bring down
amendments to the school laws of Lower Canada, which they proposed enacting into law
before a change of government should take
place, and which would become a permanent
settlement of that question. The question he
then desired to put was whether they intended
to submit these amendments before they asked
the House to pass finally upon the other
scheme of Confederation, and if so, to state
when the House might look for that measure,
as it would undoubtedly exercise very considerable influence upon the discussion of
the
Confederation scheme, and probably in the last
resort from several members from Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) Then the third question
of which he had given notice had reference to
the Intercolonial Railway. It was a novelty
that, perhaps, might not be found in the constitution of any country, to introduce
a provision for the construction of a railroad, canals,
turnpike roads or other public works. (Laughter.) But the novelty existed in this
case.
and we are told that a part of the proposed
Constitution was to build the Intercolonial
Railway, as to the usefulness of which there
had been a great difference of opinion amongst
members of the House and in the country.
After the dinner recess,
HON. MR. HOLTON, continuing his remarks, said it appeared now to be proposed to
make the construction of a railwa part of the
Constitution of the country. The President
of the Council, who had formerly strongly opposed the Intercolonial Railway, had now
become so enamoured of it and its adjuncts that
he was reported to have declared in a speech
at Toronto, that rather than not have those
adjuncts, to wit, the union of all the provinces, which he had also previously opposed
as vigorously as the railway itself, he would
consent to building six intercolonial railways. (Laughter.) He thought the House was
entitled to know what was to be done with reference to that railway before they were
asked
to consider the great question of which it
formed a part. He desired also some information as to the position of the North-West
question on which the President of the Council had always taken strong grounds, maintaining
that Canada had a territorial right
extending over all that region. He took it
for granted the President of the Council still
maintained his position, but he wished to
know from him authoritatively the manner
in which the Government proposed to deal
with the question. He desired, also, some
information on the subject of the defences,
and what was to be the measure of our con
18tributions under the proposed scheme for that
important object.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said the
Government would cheerfully give an answer
to Hon. Mr. HOLTON'S questions. As to the
local constitutions of Upper and Lower Canada,
when subordinate provinces of the Confederaation, Government proposed to submit to
the
House a scheme or schemes to be considered
by members of Upper and Lower Canada,
respecting the constitutions of their respective
governments. But the action with regard to
them must be the action of Parliament. That
action would only be asked after the Confederation scheme was adopted, for until it
was settled that there was to be Confederation,
it was idle to discuss what should be the constitutions of the several provinces.
As to the
school question, it had been announced by Hon.
Mr. GALT, at Sherbrooke, that before Confederation took place, this Parliament would
be asked
to consider a measure which he hoped would be
satisfactory to all classes of the community.
There was a good deal of apprehension in
Lower Canada on the part of the minority
there as to the possible effect of Confederation
on their rights on the subject of education,
and it was the intention of the Government, if
Parliament approved the scheme of Confederation, to lay before the House this session,
certain amendments to the school law, to
operate as a sort of guarantee against any infringement by the majority of the rights
of
the minority in this matter.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said he believed, as regarded Upper Canada, the matter
would remain in
statu quo, as the present law
there was quite satisfactory to the minority.
As regarded the Intercolonial Railroad, the
resolutions shewed precisely what was the intention of the Government in that matter.
The
railroad was not, as stated by Hon. Mr. HOLTON,
a portion of the Constitution, but was one of
the conditions on which the Lower Provinces
agreed to enter into the constitutional agreement with us. The North-West question
he
would leave in the hands of the President of
the Council, who understood it thoroughly,
and could, no doubt, give Hon. Mr. HOLTON a
satisfactory answer. With respect to the defences of the province, they were now the
subject of negotiations with the Imperial Government, and the fullest information
would be
given to the House on that subject. He might
mention that the Maritime Provinces, recognising the peculiar position of Canada geogra
phically, and its danger in case of hostilities,
had most cordially agreed that any sum this
Parliament might vote for the defence of Canada, the would undertake their share of.
MR. WALLBRIDGE asked if he was to
understand that a guarantee was to be given in
the Constitution of the Federal Government to
Roman Catholic separate schools ?
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD —I only said
this, that before Confederation is adopted, the
Government would bring down a measure to
amend the school law of Lower Canada, protecting the rights of the minority, and which,
at the same time, I believe, would be satisfactory to the majority, who have always
hitherto
shown respect for the rights of the minority,
and, no doubt, will continue to do so.
HON. MR. BROWN said Hon. Mr. HOLTON
had done no injustice to him in supposing he
held now precisely the same sentiments on the
North-West question he formerly did. He believed it of vast importance that that region
should be brought within the limits of civilization, and vigorous measures had been
taken to
ascertain what could be done with that view.
It was not long since he returned from England, where the matter was very fully discussed,
and he had not as yet had an opportunity of
submitting the thing so fully to the Council
that a decision could be had upon it, but he
had no doubt that in a very short time they
would be able to communicate to the House
ample information as to their intentions.
The discussion was then made regular by
Atty. Gen. MACDONALD formally proposing
that an Address be presented to Her Majesty.
HON. MR. HOLTON said that the universal law of Parliament with respect either
to bills or addresses looking to the disposal of
public property or funds, or additions to the
burdens of the country, was that the measure
must originate in Committee of the Whole.
This Confederation scheme disposed of the
whole assets of the country, and established
burdens which were to be applied to the purposes of the provinces of New Brunswick
and Newfoundland, besides paying eighty
cents per head of population to all the various
provinces. This appropriation of property
indeed ran throughout the scheme. Not only
so, but the usage on all similaroccasions was
to introduce the measure in Committee of the
Whole. The act of union between England
and Ireland was originated in this way, and
so was our own act of union in the legislature
of Upper Canada under the management of
Mr. POULET THOMPSON, who was well known
to be an able English parliamentarian. The
19
same course was taken on our own Reform
Bill under the HINCKS Government.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said that
any measure appropriating money must originate in Committee of the Whole, but it
was
otherwise with an Address to the Crown, asking to recommend a grant of money. This
was an address asking the Crown to make a
great constitutional change. Now, supposing
that it was asking to have the Constitution
done away with altogether, must such an address originate in committee ? Clearly not.
The money to be appropriated was to be
granted by legislatures which did not yet
exist.
HON. A. A. DORION —There is nothing
more plain than that, according to the standing order of the House of Commons, any
measure appropriating money or any Address
to the Crown asking for a grant of money,
or that expenses may be incurred, must originate in Committee of the Whole. Our own
80th rule was in a similar sense, setting forth
that motions tending to grant an aid or to
make any charge upon the people must originate in committee. Now, surely these resolutions
tended to create a charge upon the
people. Among other things they bound the
country to make a railway.
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD —That will
be made by the Confederate Government, not
by this Government. We are not granting
any money.
HON. A. A. DORION —Nor do you ever
grant money when you ask the Crown to recommend the grant, since the Crown may refuse
; surely if a matter involving $5 or $50
must originate in committee, so large a matter as this must do so.
ATTY. GEN. CARTIER spoke of Hon. Mr.
DORION'S remarks as absurd, as not a farthing of
money was being appropriated. It was quite true
the rule of the Imperial Parliament might seem
to go as far as Hon. Mr. DORION said, but we had
no such rule. Ours was founded on the Union
Act, which merely said that no appropriation
could be made, except after a Message from
His Excellency , which must be referred to a
committee. The Union Act was our law, and
to-morrow the British Parliament, with the
sanction of the Queen, might abolish the Constitution.
MR. DUNKIN —The Attorney General was
the very BAYARD of defenders of every little
corporation which had received its charter
from that legislature ; that was of every corporation or company which enjoyed his
favor,
from none of which he would take away the
smallest part of the privileges ever conferred
upon them, and yet he asserted that the whole
privileges and rights of this great colony could
be taken away to-morrow by the Imperial Parliament. He (Mr. DUNKIN) denied that all
our rights were held at pleasure, but, if they
were, that had nothing to do with the matter.
If we were precluded from giving away small
sums of money, except in a particular way,
surely we were debarred from giving away all
our rights. The British Parliament could declare that a man is a woman, and he must
thereafter legally be called a woman, but that
did not make him one.
HON. MR. GALT said clearly no charge
was put on the people by this Address ; not a
penny could be taken out of the public chest
in consequence of it. He thought also the
spirit of the rules was no more infringed than
their letter, by taking the course proposed by
the Attorney General West ; because, if the
Address passed, the Imperial Act would refer
again to the people the power of disposing of
this property by their votes.
The honorable member for Chateauguay has
submitted that the motion is not in order, " insamuch as the proposed Address prays
the Crown
to recommend to the Imperial Parliament the
passage of an Act laying new burdens on the
people of this Province, and making dispositions
as to the public property and money of this
Province, the law of Parliament requires that it
should be founded on Resolutions originated in
Committee of the whole House." Now, the 4th
clause of the 14th section of the Consolidated
Statutes of Canada, " The Legislative Assembly
shall not originate or pass any Vote, Resolution
or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the
said Consolidated Revenue Fund, or of any other
tax or impost, to any purpose which has not been
first recommended by a Message of the Governor
to the Legislative Assembly, during the Session
in which such Vote, Resolution or Bill is passed ;"
and the 88th Rule of this House, " If any motion
be made in the House for any public aid or charge
upon the people, the consideration and debate
thereof may not be presently entered upon, but
shall be adjourned till such further day as the
House shall think fit to appoint ; and then it
shall be referred to a Committee of the whole
House before any Resolution or Vote of the
House do pass thereupon," which seems to be
based thereon, refer to Resolutions or to an
Address upon which some future action of this
House is to be based. I fail to see in this motion
that the action of this House is to be involved
any further after passing this Resolution. As
this matter was discussed before I left the chair,
at six o'clock, I took occasion to put in writing
my opinion upon the subject. I will read : "The
motion is for an Address to Her Majesty, in which
20
the Resolutions on Confederation of the Provinces
are set out. How does this differ from an Address
moved to His Excellency , which always comes
on motion upon a two days' notice given as in
this case ? I cannot see how, as a point of Order,
I can treat the matter other than as in the ordinary
case of an Address. The argument is that it will
be inconvenient so to discuss it. That is not
addressed to a question of Order, but to one of
convenience. The case cited by the honorable
member for Chateauguay of Resolutions upon
the question of a Bill for the Government of
India was not one of Resolutions for an Address,
but of Resolutions simply , containing the proposed principles of the Bill intended
to be introduced. It is not pretended here that this House
has any right to pass such a Bill, or that it is
intended to present one on that subject here. The
reasons why it is convenient to discuss matters in
the form of a Resolution on which a Bill is afterwards to be introduced, is that Resolutions
more
easily admit of alteration. The Government
have expressed their determination not to admit
of any alterations in these Resolutions. Thus it
is obvious that the same reasons for going into
Committee do not hold. The member who
moves an Address can force the vote on his
motion in the manner he has put it, unless the
form of it be changed by amendment, and this
appears to be the only course open here. In
truth the word ' Resolutions' might very well
have been omitted altogether from this motion.
Whatever might have been the result on a mere
question of convenience, it is certain that the
Specker does not decide that matter. His duties
are to preserve order and decorum, and to decide
questions of Order."
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD moved
that the debate be adjourned and made
the first order for Monday after half-past
seven o'clock, P.M.
HON. MR. HOLTON raised the objection
that this motion could not be put without
two days' notice
ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said if this
was the sort of tactics to be pursued, and an
attempt made to embarrass the Government
at every step, he must withdraw the concession made to the member for Peel, and would
give notice that he would move on Tuesday ,
that the debate be continued from day to
day until the Address was finally adopted or
rejected by the House.
This individual participated in:
