Document Information

Date: 1896-08-26
By: Canada (Parliament), Lord Aberdeen, Charles Tupper
Citation: Canada, Parliament, “RETURN To an ADDRESS of the HOUSE OF COMMONS, dated 28th August, 1896, for copies of all correspondence between His Excellency the Governor General and Sir Charles Tupper, respecting certain proposed appointments and Orders in Council” in Sessional Papers (1896).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

60 Victoria.                                                                                       Sessional Papers (No. 7)                                                                                         A. 1896(2)

RETURN

(7)

To an ADDRESS of the HOUSE OF COMMONS, dated 28th August, 1896, for copies of all correspondence between His Excellency the Governor General and Sir Charles Tupper, respecting certain proposed appointments and Orders in Council.

By order.

R.W. SCOTT,
Secretary of State.

—–o0o—–

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

A. Memorandum from the Governor General to Sir Charles Tupper and his colleagues, under date 4th July, 1896.
B. Memorandum from Sir Charles Tupper to His Excellency the Governor General, under date 6th July, 1896.
C. Memorandum from His Excellency the Governor General in reply, under date 9th July, 1896.
D. Memorandum from the Governor General’s Secretary of the 10th June, 1896, re Payne’s Examination.
E. Memorandum of the Governor General’s approval of Treasury Board Minutes, 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614, 2640, 2653, submitted on the 6th and 7th July, 1896, dated 8th July, 1896.
F. Memorandum of returned submissions from the Governor General, dated 11th July, 1896.
G. Memorandum of the return of Documents recently before the Governor General, dated 11th July, 1896.
H. Sir Charles Tupper’s acknowledgment, dated 13th July, 1896, of His Excellency’s Memorandum of the 9th July, 1896.

JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk of the Privy Council,

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE,
24th August, 1896.

[Page 2]

MEMORANDUM TO THE PRIME MINISTER FOR HIMSELF AND HIS COLLEAGUES.

Until July the 7th as at present arranged, it is not likely that we shall know whether or not you deem the results of the General Election decisive against the Government, nor do I know to what extent these results may be modified by that date which you name as final in this regard.

After taking every means in my power to inform myself, it is impossible for me to ignore the probability that in the event of your deciding to meet Parliament the present Administration will fail to secure the support of the House of Commons.

This hypothesis seems to me to have important bearings.

In the first place, the business to be transacted by Parliament, though foreseen and not in character exceptional, is urgent. The supplies for the public service are already entirely exhausted. This contingency was in view when the date of the meeting of Parliament was fixed. It is in the public interest that Parliament shall meet on as early a day as possible, and be able to proceed to business forthwith.

Again, in regard to the various recommendations which in detail or by inference we discussed on Thursday, and in regard to all business which is not urgent and yet outside routine administrative requirements, the assumption that the Government has failed to secure the confidence of the electorate at the polls, leaves undiminished, indeed, increases the stringency of the limitations of an already somewhat peculiar position.

Let me explain my meaning. The circumstances are these:

The previous Administration (with Sir Mackenzie Bowell as Prime Minister), representing the views of the same political party and having a majority in both chambers, failed to pass its proposed legislation, and on the 25th of April Parliament expired by efflux of time, without having granted supplies for the public service beyond the 30^th of June. Subsequently, when no Parliament was or could be, under the circumstances, in existence, the present Administration was formed. So far, therefore, as these are dependent upon the subsequent approval of Parliament, the acts of the present Administration are in an unusual degree provisional. And as the powers of an Administration undoubtedly full and unrestricted, must surely always be used with discretion, their exercise would seem to be rightly limited, under such circumstances as the present, to the transaction of all necessary public business, while it is further a duty to avoid all acts which may embarrass the succeeding Government.

On this ground I would ask your further consideration of some of the recommendations which we discussed incidentally on Thursday. On this ground too, I felt obliged to withhold the expression of my acquiescence in your suggestion as to the appointment of Senators or Judges. (You have since then laid before me certain recommendations as to Senatorships which are vacant).

These are life appointments, and with them, under such circumstances as the present, it would seem proper to leave all other life appointments, and the creation of all new offices and appointments for the consideration of the incoming Ministers, unless always such a course is shewn to be contrary to the public interest.

In the case of the Senate, which consists of seventy-eight members, it is to be noted also that there are said to be now no more than five Senators who are Liberals. And it may well be urged that to aggravate this inequality at the present time would not only tend to embarrass the probable successor of this Government, but to increase the risk of friction between the two chambers of the Legislature.

In the case of Judges, I will only add that, bearing in mind the ordinary length of their tenure of office and also the long political predominance of one political party in the Dominion Parliament, the current deduction as to the complexion of the political opinions represented upon the Bench, whether baseless or well founded is not unnatural.

As to the remaining recommendations which are before me, and generally as to other business of a similar nature, all seem to me to be subject to the same governing consideration. Whatever business can wait without detriment to the public interest, may properly do so.

[Page 3]

There is a recommendation of a refund of money which requires the sanction of Parliament. Such recommendations will have to be placed before. Parliament by the Ministers of the day; and you may perhaps consider that they may be left to be dealt with by these Ministers.

In Mr. Payne’s case my special concern is indicated in the latter part of the Memorandum of the Governor General’s Secretary of the l0th June where the question is asked whether this appointment is in accordance with the Statutes and Regulations which govern such cases, i.e. whether it infringes upon an existing law, under which circumstances, it, with any other cases of a similar kind if there be any such, cannot properly receive sanction.

I mention another case, viz.: the recommendation of an officer to the post of Assistant Superintendent of the Cartridge Factory at Quebec. This position has been vacant for two years. It seems, therefore, desirable to reserve it, with any other similar recommendations as to vacancies of long duration for the consideration of the incoming Government, unless this course can be shown to be detrimental to the public interest.

One other matter remains to which you asked my attention yesterday, and which it may be convenient that I should mention here. I refer to your remarks on the Memoranda which I have from time to time forwarded for the consideration of Council. I have carefully considered these remarks, and my conclusions and observations are as follows:—

On referring to the books of the Governor General’s office I find that the Memoranda sent by my predecessors are similar in form to those which I have caused to be sent. As to the recording of such communications, this has evidently been done in the pa.st. My own experience certainly makes me think that this is proper and desirable and contributes to continuity of Government. As to the accessibility of such papers to successive cabinets, it must be borne in mind that, whether specifically so described or not, al[ such papers are essentially confidential. Their contents are made known only to those who are bound by oath of secrecy, and they cannot be laid before Parliament except with the consent of the Governor General. I fail, therefore, to see that there has lately been any departure from precedent or from practice in this matter.

These observations will indicate to you in the meantime the result of such consideration as I have so far been able to give to the business now before me.

(Signed)          ABERDEEN.

Government House,

Ottawa, 4th July, 1896.

—–o0o—–

MEMORANDUM.

To His Excellency the Governor General:-

I have carefully considered Your Excellency’s memorandum, dated July 4th, received at 1 p.m. to-day, which, I must frankly say, has caused my colleagues and myself much surprise and regret.

So soon as Your Excellency had returned to the Capital (the 2nd inst.), I had the honour of waiting upon you and discussing the present condition of affairs, caused by the general election which took place on the 23rd June. At that time I submitted a memorandum of precedents, indicating the practice followed in England and Canada on the defeat of a government. I explained that the division of parties was very close, and might be materially affected by the recounts which were to take place within a few days, as there were a large number of elections in which the parties had been declared elected by a very small majority. I suggested that the discussion of the course to be pursued by the Government should be deferred until after that recount had taken place, to which Your Excellency assented.

[Page 4]

As Your Excellency had not returned, a large number of the Minutes of Council which had been sent for your approval, both before and since the elections were held, I submitted for your consideration a memorandum of appointments made by the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie between the date of his defeat on the 17th September, 1878, and his resignation on the 16th October following. Your Excellency intimated the intention of asking me further to confer with you on the following day, after you had had an opportunity of perusing the papers to which I have referred. Your Excellency subsequently postponed that interview until the morning of Saturday, the 4th inst., and to-day favoured me with the memorandum to which I have now the honour to reply.

Your Excellency says that the supplies for the public service being exhausted, it is in the public interest that Parliament should meet as early as possible. You add that,—

“The previous Administration (with Sir Mackenzie Bowell as Prime Minister), representing the views of the same political party, and having a majority in both Chambers, failed to pass its proposed legislation, and on the 25th April, Parliament expired by efflux of time, without having granted supplies for the public service beyond the 30th June. Subsequently, when no Parliament was, or could be, under the circumstances in existence, the present Administration was formed. So far, therefore, as these are dependent upon the subsequent approval of Parliament, the acts of this Administration are, in an unusual degree, provisional.”

Your Excellency is aware that the failure to pass the supplies in the usual manner for the now current year was due to the fact that the life of ‘Parliament terminated on the 25th April, and that the Opposition took advantage of that circumstance to pursue a course of unparalleled obstruction, which enabled them to prevent any legislation being carried through by the Government, although it had the support of a large majority of the House of Commons, and that the day of the next meeting of Parliament was fixed at the earliest possible moment that it could safely be done.

Your Excellency says:—

“In regard to the various recommendations, which in detail or by inference we discussed on Thursday, and in regard to all business which is not urgent, and yet outside routine administrative requirements, the assumption that the Government has failed to secure the confidence of the electorate at the polis leaves undiminished, indeed increases, the stringency of the limitations of an already somewhat peculiar position.”

Your Excellency further says:—

“As the powers of an Administration undoubtedly full and unrestricted must surely always be used with discretion, their exercise would seem to be rightly limited, under such circumstances as the present to the transaction of all necessary public business, while it is further a duty to avoid all acts which may embarrass a succeeding Government.”

On this ground Your Excellency says that you feel obliged to withhold the expression of any acquiescence in my recommendation as to the appointment of Senators or Judges. You observe:

“These are life appointments, and with them under such circumstances as the present, it would seem proper to leave all other life appointments and the creation of all new offices and appointments for the consideration of the incoming Ministers, unless always such a course is shown to be contrary to the public interest.”

Your Excellency goes on to remark:—

“In the case of the Senate which consists of seventy-eight members, it is to be noted also that there are said to be now no more than five Senators who are Liberals.” And further:—

“In the case of Judges, I will only add that bearing in mind the ordinary length of their tenure of office, and also the long political predominance of one political party in the Dominion Parliament, the current deduction as to the complexion of the political opinions represented upon the Bench, whether baseless or well founded, is not unnatural.”

I should fail in my duty to Your Excellency as well as to the principles which govern the administration of public affairs in Canada, where Parliamentary Govern-

[Page 5]

ment is carried on precisely as it is in England, if I did not draw your attention to the very serious consequences of the views which you have indicated as guiding your action on the present occasion. The recognized authorities on Parliamentary Law, and the practice both in England and in Canada have, I contend, settled these questions beyond dispute. Todd, in his “Parliamentary Government in England” Vol. II, p. 512, says:—

“The verdict of the country having been pronounced against Ministers at a general election, it is nevertheless competent for them to remain in office until the new Parliament has met and given a definitive and final decision upon their merits; for the House of Commons is the legitimate organ of the people, whose opinions cannot be constitutionally ascertained except through their representatives in Parliament. It is necessary, however, and according to precedent, that, under such circumstances, the new Parliament should be called together without delay.” And on page 513:—

“For, notwithstanding their resignations, the outgoing Ministers are bound to conduct the ordinary business of Parliament and of the country so long as they retain the seals of office. They continue, moreover, in full possession of their official authority and functions, and must meet and incur the full responsibility of all public transactions until their successors have kissed bonds upon their acceptance of office.” And on page 514:—

“It was always the practice to fill up vacancies. Peerages promised by a Minister’s predecessors in office had been granted, though no instrument had been signed or sealed on the subject.”

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

“In 1858, Lord Palmerston, after his tender of resignation, and before his successor was appointed, allotted three of the highest honours of the Crown—three Garters—which were then unappropriated, to three eminent noblemen, his friends and supporters. And in 1866, upon the dissolution of the second Russell Ministry, an office was filled up by that Government which did not become vacant until two days after their resignation had been tendered to Her Majesty. The interference of Parliament with the exercise of the prerogative under such circumstances has never taken place, and would only be justifiable under circumstances of a flagrant character.” And on page 515:—

“The Disraeli Ministry (after its defeat in 1869) appointed the Earl of Mayo to be Governor General of India; but this appointment, though severely criticized by the Liberal press, was unquestioned in Parliament.”

In 1852 Lord Derby took office with a minority. The new Ministers were defeated in the House by 234 to 146, and dissolved on July 1st, 1852. They were beaten at the elections; but summoned Parliament, and did not resign until defeated—305 to 286—on the Budget.

In 1859 Lord Derby dissolved on April 19th, and Ministers were defeated at the polls by 350 to 302, but they met Parliament on May 31st and did not resign until defeated by a majority of 13.

In 1892, Lord Salisbury dissolved, but the Opposition previously voted the Estimates for the year and expedited public business. he was defeated by a majority of 40; but he did not resign until he was defeated by a direct vote of want of confidence, 350 to 310.

I think it well also to call Your Excellency’s attention to the case which arose in New Zealand in 1891, as set forth in an Official Return of the Imperial House of Commons. Referring to the recommendations of six members for the Legislative Council of the defeated Ministry, to which he had given his sanction, Lord Onslow, the Governor of that Colony, in a letter to Lord Knutsford, says:—

“It has, however, long been the practice in England for Ministers even after a vote of censure has been passed on them in Parliament, to advise the Crown to create a limited number of peerages, not only for the purpose of strengthening the Upper House, but admittedly as rewards to those who, being qualified for the position of Peers, have rendered political services to the defeated party.”

[Page 6]

Lord Knutsford, in replying to that despatch, says:—

“With regard to the appointments to the Legislative Council recommended by the late Government, I am of opinion that in accepting the advice tendered to you by Your Lordship’s responsible Ministers under the circumstances described in your despatches, you acted strictly in accordance with the constitution of the Colony, but I do not desire to be understood to offer any opinion upon the action of your Ministers in tendering that advice.”

No question, therefore, can possibly arise as to the British constitutional practice in regard to the right of a defeated Ministry to carry on the public business until their successors are appointed, and to fill any vacancies that nay exist. Lord Salisbury was not precluded from the creation of additional Peers, although the disparity between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the House of Lords was at least as great as that which exists in the Senate here. But to put the question beyond controversy, I have only to call Your Excellency’s attention to the fact that the Honourable Mr. Mackenzie, after his defeat in 1878 by a majority of between 80 and 90 in the House of Commons, secured the approval of Lord Dufferin, then Governor General of Canada, to 180 Minutes of Council, being all that were submitted to him without any exception, of which 82 were appointments to office, including a Deputy Minister, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, four puisné Judges and a County Court Judge.

In reference to Your Excellency’s statement respecting the Canadian Judiciary, I am glad to be able to say, that in Canada as in England our Judges are neither Liberal nor Conservative; nor can they in any sense be said to represent political opinion on the Bench. I do not know upon what sources of information Your Excellency may have relied, but in this case, at all events, you will find them exceedingly untrustworthy in the sense of referring to the political party to which the Judge belonged at the time of his appointment, I may call Your Excellency’s attention to the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Sir Henry Strong, and the present Mr. Justice Taschereau, were appointed by Mr. Mackenzie, and that in Ontario the present Chief Justice Armour, Mr. Justice Maclennan, Mr. Justice Burton, Mr. Justice McMahon, and County Court Judges Jones, Ross, Price, Bell, Senkler, Wilkison, Burnham, Pringle and Dean; in the Province of Quebec, Mr. Justice Taschereau, Mr. Justice Jetté, Mr. Justice Bourgeois, Mr. Justice Caron, Mr. Justice Belanger, and Mr. Justice Plamondon; in Nova Scotia, Mr. Justice Weatherbe and County Court Judges Johnstone, DesBrisay, Morse and McTsaac; in Manitoba, Chief Justice Taylor and Mr. Justice Killam; in New Brunswick, County Court Judge Steadman, and in Prince Edward Island, County Court Judge Alley-all belonged to the Liberal party when appointed to the Bench.

In relation to the recommendation for the Senate, I may say that Your Excellency is aware that Messrs. Angers and Désjardins resigned their seats in the Upper House in order to place their services at the disposal of the Crown, and have thus an undoubted claim to special consideration.

I may also be permitted to draw Your Excellency’s attention to the fact that during the five years Mr. Mackenzie was Premier he met with no lack of support from the Senate except on two occasions. On those occasions he failed to obtain the assistance of sone of his most prominent supporters in the House of Commons, and subsequently I myself heard him frankly admit that in those two instances the Senate was right and he was wrong. The retention of the confidence of the country by the Senate, in my judgment, will depend much more upon the character and attainments of the gentlemen who are appointed to it, than upon their political convictions at the time of their appointment.

I may venture to remind Your Excellency that the exigencies of the public service and the difficulties to which you have alluded have been caused by the obstruction of public business by the Opposition, notwithstanding that the Government, of which I was the leader in the House of Commons, had the support of a large majority of that House. At that time the unfortunate circumstances to which I have referred. enabled comparatively few persons to prevent any legislation or public business being done by the House. Had the Opposition in Canada adopted the course followed in the Imperial Parliament in 1892, when the Opposition voted the estimates for the year and expedited public

[Page 7]

business, no such difficulty could have presented itself, and I fail to see why such obstruction on the part of an Opposition should entitle them to the special Consideration of the Crown.

With reference to the inquiries which Your Excellency has from time to time thought fit to address to the Clerk of the Privy Council, I can only re-state my impression that such information in times past has been sought and obtained by the Governor General through communications with the Prime Minister or the Minister directly concerned, rather than by means of official memoranda which become part of the Records of Council.

In conclusion, I may be permitted to say to Your Excellency that under the British constitutional system which Canada has the happiness to enjoy, the Queen’s representative, like Her Majesty, is the executive head of the country, removed from the arena of public controversy, however fierce the conflict of parties may be; and in my judgment no more fatal mistake could be made than any interposition in the management of public affairs which would cause the Governor General to be identified with either one party or the other.

Adhering respectfully but firmly to the opinions I have ventured to express in this memorandum, which I regret to find do not agree with those of Your Excellency, it remains only for me to tender the resignation of my colleagues and myself, and to ask that we may be relieved from our responsibilities as Ministers of the Crown at the earliest convenience of Your Excellency.

(Signed)          CHARLES TUPPER.

Privy Council Chamber,
Ottawa, 6th July, 1896.

—–o0o—–

MEMORANDUM in further reference to the Governor General’s Memorandum of July 4^th and Sir Charles Tupper’s Memorandum of July 8^th.

My action at the present time has been guided solely by a regard for the following facts, namely, that—

(1.) Parliament expired on April 25th.

(2.) The result of the General Elections on June 23rd was the defeat of the Government.

(3.) The supplies for the public service came to an end on July 30th, and by the view that, pending the assembly of Parliament, the full powers and authority, unquestionably possessed by the Government, should be exercised in such directions only as are demanded by the exigencies of the public interest, and so as to avoid all acts which may tend to embarrass the succeeding Administration.

(Signed)          ABERDEEN.

July 9th, 1896.

—–o0o—–

To the Honourable the Privy Council:

In reference to Minute No. 2098, now before His Excellency, and of which His Excellency in the meantime withholds his approval, the undersigned desires to be acquainted, for the information of His Excellency, with the reasons which induce the Committee to propose that the provisions referred to, which were not intended to be waived prior to the examination in question, should now be waived after the candidates have undergone their examination and the results thereof have been obtained.

[Page 8]

The undersigned would further ask to be informed whether the course suggested is in accordance with the statutes and regulations.

By command,

(Signed)          JOHN SINCLAIR,
Governor General’s Secretary.          

The Citadel, Quebec, 10th June, 1896.

—–o0o—–

To the Honourable The Privy Council:

Memorandum with reference to the Treasury Board Reports numbered 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614, 2640 and 2653, which are returned herewith subject to this memorandum and signed by the Governor General, having been submitted to him on the 6^th and 7^th instant.

The undersigned is directed by the Governor General to request that pending their further consideration by Council His Excellency’s approval be withheld from all recommendations which involve—

(1) The creation of new offices or appointments;

(2) The filling of vacancies for which no provision has been made by Parliament and which have existed for more than one clear fiscal year ;

(3) Superannuations; (and the consequential appointments) for which application has not been received.

By command,

(Signed)          JOHN SINCLAIR,
Governor General’s Secretary.          

July 8th, 1896.

—–o0o—–

453 submissions to His Excellency the Governor General between the 23rd June and 8th July, 1896, and approved.

—–o0o—–

To the Honourable The Privy Council:

The following Minutes of Council which have not yet received the signature of the Governor General are herewith returned to you.

Numbers, 1329, 1425, 2098, 2304, 2305, 2411, 2412, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2473, 2616, 2617, 2619, 2088, 2398.

By command,

(Signed)          JOHN SINCLAIR,
Governor General’s Secretary.          

July 11th, 1896.

[Page 9]

1329.—Renewing contract with N. Robertson for $5,600, the highest estimate, for a further period of five years without tender, for the maintenance of Parliament grounds, &c., although former contracts were annually let.

1425.—Appointment of Captain V. B. Rivers to be Assistant Superintendent of Cartridge Factory at Quebec, (vacancy existing two years).

2098.—Waiving marks in Promotion Examination of J. L. Payne and Leon Gerin, after their having failed in such examination.

2304.—Setting aside Promotion Examination after Mr. Payne having failed in such examination.

2305.—Appointment J. L. Payne, Assistant Clerk Privy Council.

2411.—Appointment John T. Mellish, Revising Officer, West Queen’s, P.E.I.

2412.—Appointment Charles R. Smallwood, Revising Officer, East Queen’s, P.E.I.

2450.—Appointment Hon. A. R. Angers, Senator for Quebec.

2451.—Appointment George Gooderham, Senator for Ontario.

2452.—Appointment Hon. A. Desjardins, Senator for Quebec.

2453.—Appointment N. W. White, Senator for Nova Scotia.

2473.—Appointment James E. Wyatt, Revising Officer, West Prince, P.E.I.

2616.—Appointment Judge Doherty, Revising Officer, Ste. Anne’s, Montreal.

2617.—Appointment C. E. Gagnon, Revising Officer, St. Hyacinthe.

2619.—Appointment G. P. Chateauvert, Revising Officer, Quebec.

2088.—Appointment F. G. Fauquier, to be Deputy Collecter of Inland Revenue, Nakusp, B.C., (a new appointment).

2398.—Appointment J. B. Walkem, Deputy Registrar, Toronto, Admiralty District, (a new appointment).

NOTE—In reference to the Memorandum addressed by order of His Excellency the Governor General to the Honourable The Privy Council, and dated July 8th, 1896.

The Memorandum, with the Governor General’s signature of the six Treasury Board Reports to which it refers, is dated July 8th, as being the date upon which His Excellency intimated its contents to Sir Charles Tupper. These papers were placed with the Clerk of the Privy Council on July 11th.

By command,

(Signed)          JOHN SINCLAIR,
Governor General’s Secretary.          

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, OTTAWA, July 11, 1896.

—–o0o—–

OTTAWA, July 13th, 1896.

DEAR LORD ABERDEEN,

On my return from Toronto yesterday I had the honour of receiving Your Excellency’s note of the 11th inst., enclosing a memorandum, dated July 9th, in further reference to my memorandum of July 6th.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed)          CHARLES TUPPER.

[Page 1]

Appointments.

SUPPLEMENTARY RETURNS

(7a and 7b)

To an ADDRESS of the HOUSE OF COMMONS, dated 28th August, 1896, for copies of all correspondence between His Excellency the Governor General and Sir Charles Tupper, respecting certain proposed appointments and Orders in Council.

APPOINTMENTS made by the outgoing Liberal Government between their defeat, 17^th September, 1878, and their resignation, 8th October, 1878.

[Page 2]

APPOINTMENTS made by the outgoing Liberal Government, &c.—Continued.

[Page 3]

APPOINTMENTS made by the Outgoing Liberal Government, &c.—Concluded.

[Page 4]

[17b]

MINISTERIAL RESIGNATIONS.

—–o0o—–

PEEL.

In 1834 Sir Robert Peel took office at the request of the King and the Duke of Wellington and knowing that he was in the minority in the House dissolved. The new Ministers were defeated, but Sir Robert Peel met the Parliament and did not resign until he had been defeated.

1. On the Speakership;

2. On the Temporalities of the Irish Church;

3. Or several minor questions.

MELBOURNE.

Peel resigned on April 8th, 1835. Melbourne took office April 18th. House adjourned till May 12th to re-elect ministry.

Melbourne dissolved on June 22nd, 1841, and was defeated at the polls. The Ministers met the House on August 19th and did not resign till after a vote of want of confidence had been carried by 91 majority.

On August 30th they resigned. Peel was summoned to form a government. Peel carried on until 1846, when, after having carried the repeal of the Corn Laws and having been defeated in the House, he resigned. Lord John Russell formed a new administration on the free trade basis.

RUSSELL.

Lord John dissolved on 23rd of July, 1847. He carried on until 1852 having been successful at the elections, and dissolved on July 1st, 1852. The Ministers were left in a minority at the election, but they summoned Parliament to meet on December 4th.

DERBY.

In 1852 he resigned and Lord Derby took office with a minority.

The new Ministers were defeated in the House by 234 to 146, and dissolved on July 1st, 1852. They were beaten at the elections; but summoned Parliament and did not resign until defeated—305 to 286 on the Budget.

In 1859 Lord Derby dissolved on April 19th, and Ministers were defeated at the polls by 350 to 302, but they met the Parliament on May 31st and did not resign till defeated by a majority of 13.

DISRAELI.

In 1868, November 1lth, Disraeli dissolved and was defeated at the polls by about 120. He resigned December 2nd without meeting Parliament. (See his statement in article in Canadian Magazine, p. 8.)

GLADSTONE.

Mr. Gladstone in his turn dissolved on January 26th, 1874, having been defeated He resigned on February 17th without meeting the House.

[Page 5]

DISRAELI.

Disraeli again dissolved on March 25th, 1880, and resigned once more without calling the House. (See comment in Annual Register, p. 55.)

The doctrine that it is only through Parliament that the nation can speak prevailed up to 1868, and a ministry beaten at a general election therefore only accepted defeat at the hands of Parliament.—Fortnightly Review, vol. 24, page 265.

In 1868 and 1880 the Conservative Administration and in 1874 a Gladstonian Administration departed from this course. In 1892 a Salisbury Administration adopted the regular method of accepting defeat in Parliament.—Parliamentary Government in the Colonies, vol. 12, page 71.

Mr. E. A. Freeman deprecates departure from the ancient constitutional usage.—Int. Review, vol. 2, page 374.

In 1886, when Mr. Gladstone resigned after being beaten at the polls, the majority against him was very great.

Conservatives…………………………….   316

Liberal Unionists……………………….    78

___      394

Liberals…………………………………….    191

Home Rulers……………………………..    95

___      276

___

Majority against Mr. Gladstone ……   118

In 1892 Lord Salisbury dissolved, but the Opposition had previously voted the estimates for the year and expedited business.

Result of the election:—

For Home Rule……………………………………     355

Against………………………………………………      315

___

Majority…………………………………………….      40

He did not resign until he was defeated by a direct vote of want of confidence: 315 to 310.

Parliament was opened on the 8th August, 1892, by the following speech:—

THE QUEEN’S SPEECH.

The Lord Chancellor delivered Her Majesty’s Speech to both Houses of Parliament, as follows

“My Lords and Gentlemen:

“We have to inform you by the command of Her Majesty that the present Parliament has been assembled in obedience to the terms of Her Majesty’s Proclamation of the 28th June, 1892, by which the late Parliament was dissolved.

“Previous to that dissolution the business of the session was completed, and it is therefore not necessary that Parliament should now continue in session at an unusual period of the year for the transaction of financial or legislative business.-Parliamentary Debates, vol. 7, 1882, page 21.

“It is Her Majesty’s hope that when you meet again at the customary season you will again direct your attention to measures of social and domestic improvement, and that you will continue to advance in the path of usual and beneficent legislation, which has been so judiciously followed in previous sessions.”

[Page 6]

“Mr. Cross, in seconding the answer to the address, stated that the Government were prepared to accept cheerfully the verdict of the electors, which was in favour of a change.”—Page 92.

Mr. Asquith, in supporting a motion in amendment to the address of want of confidence, argued that his amendment was in order and in accordance with precedents of 1841 and 1859, “and record and render effective the considered judgment of the country.”—Parliamentary Debates, vol. 7, 1892, page 96.

Mr. Gladstone favoured the precedent of Lord Beaconsfield in 1868 to resign without incurring the delay of meeting Parliament. In his speech he said: ” It may be said that in this convenient course there is the disadvantage involved that the country, when the Government disappeared, was not put in full possession of its prospective intentions.”—Page 1896.

Mr. Balfour, in replying, said: “I must protest against the right hon. gentleman’s interpretation of precedents. In meeting Parliament we are strictly following the best precedents. We are following strictly the precedents of 1841, for example, and of 1859. We are not following the precedents of 1868, 1874, 1880 or 1886. I quite admit that. I have two replies to that objection of the right hon. gentleman. My first reply is that the older precedents are precedents of far longer standing-that the older precedents have behind them a far longer concatenation of authorities to support them, and that the precedent of 1868 is an absolutely novel precedent. I have to remind him, in the second place, that the circumstances of the present time in no way resemble those which prevailed in the years 1868, 1874 or 1880.”—Page 220.

“On those occasions the Opposition was returned by a majority absolutely overwhelming in its character and absolutely homogeneous in its character. The Leader of the Opposition in those years came back to this House at the head of a majority on which he could absolutely rely to outvote, not merely what is called the regular Opposition, but the regular Opposition in combination, or not in combination, with any other section of the House.”*         *          *” The present Government are in a minority, but whose is in a majority I The present Government may have lost the confidence of the House, but who has obtained the confidence of’ the House?”-Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 7, page 220.

*          *          *          *          “The outgoing Government, and the House generally, have a right to review the situation, and to estimate the forces that are arrayed for and against them; to consider the position in which the country at large is placed; what are the prospects of future administration and future legislation; and that they should avail themselves of that opportunity on an occasion like this, when the party opposed to them is broken up at least into three divisions owning different leaders, surely requires neither explanation or justification “—Page 221.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: ” To-day we are to put out that Government. The Government which comes in is immediately to prorogue Parliament, and for five, it may be for six months, this ‘nebular hypothesis’ is going to carry on the whole administration of the country; it is going to decide its policy; it is going to exercise all the prerogatives of Government, and neither the House of Commons nor the country knows whether from the first moment of its existence it may not be in a minority. I will show that very soon. It is a strange and unexampled position, and yet right hon. gentlemen on this side, baked and supported by hon. gentlemen behind them, have endeavoured to stifle debate, and they are going without one word of explanation, without one word of information on important parts of their policy, to endeavour for these five or six months to carry out a policy which never has, which never could have the approval of the majority of this country.”—Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 7, 1892, page 339.

“It is perfectly well known—it is an open secret-that on this side of the House and in the majority—I am speaking now of the British portion of the majority—there are different sections who have different objects to which they attach an altogether different value. They may be all content to postpone these several objects for a greater and more dominant one, but when it comes to settling the precedents between the remainder it is not too much to say that very probably there may be differences of opinion. Have those differences then, or are they likely to be reconciled before the present Government comes into office ?”—Page 340.

[Page 7]

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

“It has been a matter of discussion in this debate whether, in the election which has just taken place, it could seriously be said that the voice of the country has been altered on the Hone Rule question. I say that in the late election the Home Rule question was put to the front by us, and has kept to the front, so far as I know, persistently and perseveringly, in every constituency. It was not the case with our opponents. Amongst our opponents there were three candidates who did keep the Home Rule question steadily in the front. One of them was the right hon. gentleman, the member for Midlothian; another was a relative of the right hon. gentleman who sits for a division of Leeds, and the third was the right hon. gentleman, the member for Newcastle; and by steadfastly keeping the question of Home Rule to the front in their addresses and in their speeches they reduced their aggregate majority by ten thousand votes. Of this I am sure: that if the issues of the election could have been limited to Home Rule we should have come back with a large majority, and there would have been no question of displacement of confidence before us. Of course, it is not possible that an election should be kept entirely to one issue. Of course, you must have local questions, class questions and industrial questions, in different constituencies; but there has been in this century one special election, which, perhaps, more than any other, was limited to one question, and that was the election of 1886. In 1886 a definite scheme of Home Rule was put before the House, a scheme which has been constructed with great political capacity, and had been defended in this House by the most splendid parliamentary rhetoric which this generation has listened to. The election in 1886 was on the specific issue of Home Rule. We know how that ended, and I am confident that if ever that question is again to be put as a single question before the constituencies of this country, the judgment of 1886 will be repeated, with increased emphasis and force, and that the constituencies would make an end of any such proposition.”—Page 372.

Referring to the election it is said: “The figures therefore stood, for Home Rule, Liberals and Labour candidates, 274; Nationalists and Parnellites, 81, total 355. Againt Home Rule, Conservatives, 269; Liberal Unionists, 46, total 315. Showing a majority of 40 for Home Rule, compared with a majority of 66 against it, with which the election had opened. Unfortunately for the hopes of the Gladstonian party the majority thus obtained against Lord Salisbury’s government depended wholly upon the Irish vote, which, although reduced, more than outbalanced the Liberal Unionists, who although not ‘wiped out’ as their former colleagues had prophesied, had suffered most severely in the campaign. Wales, Scotland and Ireland taken separately showed strong majorities in favour of Home Rule—Wales, 26, Scotland, 29 and Ireland, 57; but against these England alone declared by a majority of 71 in favour of the maintenance of the Union, and Great Britain by a net majority of 16 in the same sense. Political power thus rested absolutely in the hands of the Irish Nationalists, and these were so unequally divided that the followers of Mr. McCarthy were in a position to dictate the terms upon which their support was to be attained.”—Annual Register, 1892, p. 121-22.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

“The writs for the new parliament had been made returnable on August 4th, and the question was warmly debated in the press whether Mr. Gladstone or Lord Salisbury should meet the two houses in the character of Prime Minister. The precedents of 1874 and 1880 were cited to show that on these occasions the leader of the minority had resigned office without awaiting a formal vote of the House of Commons. But in each instance cited the majority had been homogeneous and its meaning unmistakable. On the present occasion when the dissolution of the bond which united three kingdoms was repudiated by one of the contracting parties as strongly as it was demanded by the other two, Lord Salisbury was scarcely justified in quitting office without giving his opponents a chance of explaining their grounds for dismissing him. Moreover, some of the most significant victories of the Unionists had been undoubtedly in those constituencies as in the Midlands, where Home Rule was practicably the test question; whilst the Liberal successes in boroughs and counties had been gained by Unionists who put Home Rule in the back ground, and advocated most strongly the Newcastle programme. In Scotland Disestablishment had more to do with determining the votes of the electors than

[Page 8]

any other question; and in Ireland itself the Unionists gained four seats and lost none, the Nationalists further asserting themselves not to be Gladstonians but Irish members only, who would not take their policy from any English leader.”—Annual Register, 1892, p. 122.

“The fact that Lord Salisbury’s Government is supported by a majority of Unionists in Great Britain, and by a large majority in England, and that the Opposition is in a minority unless aided by the Irish factions who profess to stand aloof from all English parties, makes it impossible for Mr. Gladstone to raise any constitutional objection to the course taken by the Government in meeting Parliament.”—London Times; July 20th, 1892.

In 1878 the Government on the 17th September, was beaten by an overwhelming majority of 85 on the first vote. On the 19th September, 1878, in a letter to Lord Dufferin, Mr. Mackenzie observed: “The elections are mostly over, and sufficiently to be “conclusive as to the defeat of the Government.”

“I shall endeavour to get my colleagues here as soon as possible to finish up what business we have in hand, after which I propose to wait upon Your Excellency at Quebec to tender you my resignation. I shall not initiate any new business here, but I propose filling a few vacancies which occurred within the past few weeks. I propose also, dealing with several English despatches, which have been unattended to during the heat of the election contest, and were under discussion before.”—Buckingham & Ross’s Life of Mackenzie, p. 514-515.

Again on the 9th of October, 1878, in placing his formal resignation in the hands of Lord Dufferin, Mr. Mackenzie said: “The protectionist principle undoubtedly obtained a victory at the polls.

“Under these circumstances the proper course would probably be for the Government to meet Parliament at the earliest possible moment in order that no time should be lost in giving effect to a policy the country had approved of. We felt, however, that it would be unpleasant to remain in office after asserting that there was no probability of the policy of the Government being sustained by the new House. The other course would doubtless be the one in accordance with English practice, but there are two precedents of a recent date in favour of a resignation before the meeting of Parliament, these precedents being made by the leaders of both political parties in England. Feeling that we are now justified in pursuing that course, I have resolved, with the concurrence of my colleagues, to close up all business in the departments at the earliest possible moment, with the view of enabling our successors to meet Parliament at an early day, with measures for carrying into effect the policy to which they committed themselves at the election.”—Page 529.

[Page 1]

Appointments

RETURN

[7c]

To an ADDRESS of the HOUSE oF COMMONS, dated 31st August, 1896, asking for a return showing the subject of reports to His Excellency in Council and all Minutes of Council approved after the resignation of Sir John A. Macdonald in 1873, before the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie took office; also showing the subject of all reports to His Excellency in Council and Minutes of Council approved after the defeat of the Hon. A. Mackenzie in 1878, and before the Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald took office; also showing the subject of all reports to His Excellency in Council and Minutes of Council approved after the 23rd day of June, 1896, and before the Hon. Wilfrid Laurier took office; also showing the subject of any Minutes of Council approved after 23rd June, 1896, subsequently rescinded.

By order.

R.W. SCOTT,
Secretary of State.

OTTAWA, 8th September, 1896.

—–o0o—–

In compliance with the above Address the following Papers are annexed:

A. All Minutes of Council approved after the resignation of Sir John A. Macdonald on the 5th of November, 1873, before the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie took office.

B. All Minutes of Council approved after the general elections on the 17th of September, 1878, and previous to the resignation of the Administration of the Honourable A. Mackenzie.

C. All Minutes of Council approved after the 23rd day of June, 1896, and before the Hon. Wilfrid Laurier took office.

D. Minutes of Council, cancelling certain Minutes of Council passed between 23^rd June and 10th July, 1896.

JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Page 2]

A

ALL MINUTES OF COUNCIL APPROVED AFTER THE RESIGNATION OF SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD ON THE 5TH NOVEMBER, 1873, BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. MACKENZIE TOOK OFFICE.

To His Excellency the Right Honourable SIR FREDERICK TEMPLE HAMILTON BLACKWOOD, Earl of Dufferin, Viscount and Baron Clandeboye, of Clandeboye, in the County Down, in the Peerage of the United Kingdon of Great Britain and Ireland, Baron Dufferin and Clandeboye of Ballyleidy and Killeleah, in the County Down, in the Peerage of Ireland and a Baronet, Knight of the most Illustrious Order of St. Patrick and Knight Commander of the most honourable Order of the Bath, Governor General of Canada,

1570.

REPORT of a Committee of the Privy Council on Matters of State referred for their consideration by your Excellency’s command.

Present:—The Honourable S. L. Tilley in the chair; P. Mitchell; A. Campbell; Hector L. Langevin; J. C. Aikins; Charles Tupper; J. H. Pope; John O’Connor; Thos. N. Gibbs; Theodore Robitaille and Hugh McDonald. May it please your Excellency.

On the recommendation of the Honourable the Minister of Customs the Committee advise that Lancaster H. Schofield, of Prescott, Ont., be appointed a Landing Waiter and Searcher in Her Majesty’s Customs at Prescott, with a salary of $700 per annum.

S.L. TILLEY,
Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

1571.

On the recommendation of the Honourable the Minister of Finance, and for the reasons given in his report, the Committee advise that James Henderson be appointed Caretaker and Messenger in Assistant Receiver General’s Office, Toronto, at a salary of $600 per annum, and to reside on the premises. The appointment to date from January 1st next, when it is expected that the office can be moved to the new building.

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

1572.

On the recommendation of the Honourable the Minister of Customs, dated 5^th November, 1873, the Committee advise that Mr. John Conroy, of the Town of Amherstburg, County of Essex, be appointed Landing Waiter and Searcher in Her Majesty’s Customs, to be stationed at the Port of Amherstburg, with a salary of $500 per annum.

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

[Page 3]

Appointments.

1573.

On the recommendation of the Honourable the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the committee advise that John T. Jenkins, M.R.C.S., aged 41 years, be appointed medical officer to the Marine Hospital at Charlottetown, P.E.I., at a salary of $400 per annum.

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 18713.

DUFFERIN.

1574.

On the recommendation of the Honourable the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the committee advise that Mr. Edmond Blagdon, aged years, be appointed keeper of the lighthouse at Biquet, in the River St. Lawrence, with the salary and allowances fixed by Order in Council of the 11th February, 1870, viz., $600 per annum, in place of Mr. J. T. Béchard, resigned.

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

1575.

On the recommendation of the Honourable the Minister of Finance, the committee advise that an allowance of $200 be made to Mr. Wm. Seely for his additional services during the period that he had charge of the Savings Bank, St. John, over and above his ordinary duties as auditor.

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

1576.

On a memorandum dated 5th November, 1873, from the Hon. the Secretary of State submitting the account in duplicate of Messrs Duvernay Frères and Dansereau for translating and printing the French version of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into certain matters connected with the Pacific Railway and recommending that, the account having been reported upon favourably by the Queen’s Printer, a Warrant be issued for the sum of $736.23 in favour of Messrs. Duvernay Frères and Dansereau to pay the same, and that the amount be charged against the appropriation for “Unforeseen Expenses.”

The Committee submit the above recommendation for Your Excellency’s approval.

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

1577.

On a Memorandum, dated 5th November, 1873, from the Hon. the Minister of Public Works, stating that certain public lots, situate at the eastern side of the Rideau Canal Basin, and bounded on the west by Mosgrove Street, and on the south by a lane

[Page 4]

leading into Nicholas Street, as shown on the inclosed plan, and not required for public purposes, and recommending that they be transferred to the Department of the Interior.

The Committee submit the above recommendation for Your Excellency’s approval

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

1578.

On the recommendation of the Hon. the Minister of Customs the Committee advise that Mr. F. W. Bradford of St. Andrew’s, N.B., be appointed a Preventive Officer in H. M. Customs for St. Andrew’s and vicinity, salary $400 per annum.

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873,

DUFFERIN.

1579.

On the recommendation of the Honourable the Postmaster General, the Committee advise that John O’Toole, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, aged 29 years, be appointed under the Civil Service Act, 1868, a clerk of the fourth class for the outside service.

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

1580.

On a report dated 5th November, 1873, from the Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence, stating with reference to the land at Grand Falls, N.B., held under lease for several years by Thomas Temple, Esq., as transferee of James Thompson, Esq., and which lease expired on the 1st instant.

He recommends that a lease of the same land be granted to William Lawler of Chatham, N.B., for a period of ten years from the 1st instant, subject to a rental of $60 per annum, payable half yearly in addition to the stumpage, chargeable under the existing lease.

The Committee submit the above recommendation for Your Excellency’s approval.

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

1581.

On the recommendation of the Honourable the Minister of Inland Revenue, the Committee advise that James Heavey be appointed as messenger in the London Division at a salary of $365 per annum.

S.L. TILLEY,

Senior Member, Privy Council.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

1582.

On the recommendation of the Honourable the Minister of Justice, the Committee advise that Robert Lyon, Esq., barrister-at-law, be appointed Senior Judge of the County of Carleton.

JOHN A. MACDONALD.

Approved, 6th November, 1873.

DUFFERIN.

[Page 5]

B

ALL MINUTES OF COUNCIL APPROVED AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTIONS ON THE 17TH SEPTEMBER, 1878, AND PREVIOUS TO THE RESIGNATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE HON. ALEX. MACKENZIE.

SUBMISSIONS to His Excellency the Governor General between the 17th September, 1878, and 17th October, f878, when Sir John Macdonald took office.

[Page 6]

SUBMISSIONS to His Excellency the Governor General between the 17th September, 1878, and 17th October, 1878, when Sir John Macdonald took office.-Continued.

[Page 7]

Appointments.

SUBMISSIONS to His Excellency the Governor General between the 17th September, 1878, and 17th October, 1878, when Sir John Macdonald took office.—Continued.

[Page 8]

SUBMISSIONS to His Excellency the Governor General between the 17th September, 1878, and 17th October, 1878, when Sir John Macdonald took office.—Concluded.

[Page 9]

C

ALL MINUTES OF COUNCIL APPROVED AFTER THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 1896, AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE WILFRID LAURIER TOOK OFFICE.

SUBMISSIONS to His Excellency the Governor General between the 23rd June, 1896, and the 11th July, 1896, when Honourable Mr. Laurier took office.

[Page 10]

SUBMISSIONs to His Excellency the Governor General between the 23rd June, 1896, and the 11th July, 1896, when Honourable Mr. Laurier took office.—Continued.

[Page 11]

Appointments.

2086.

EXTRACT from a Report of Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency on the 6th July, 1896.

The Committee have had under consideration a Report, hereto annexed, from the Minister of Public Works, dated 20th May, 1896, regarding the claims of Mr. A. Charlebois, contractor for the construction of the ” Langevin Block,” for various sums of money in connection with his contract therefor.

The Committee, concurring in the recommendations of the Minister of Public Works, as contained in the said Report, submit the same for Your Excellency’s approval.

JOHN J. MCGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

(Annex A to O. C. No. 2086—6th July, 1896.)

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, OTTAWA, May 20th, 1896.

Copy—Memorandum.

The undersigned has the honour to report,—

That on the 20th September, 1883, a contract was entered into between this Department and Mr. A. Charlebois for the construction of a new departmental building in this city, the contract price for the said building being $295,000.

That on the 3rd September, 1886, another contract was entered into with Mr. Charlebois for the construction of the iron roof of the said building for the sum of $60,000, and that on the 7th September, 1888, a third contract was entered into with Mr. Charlebois for the construction of iron staircases for the sum of $11,040.

That Mr. Charlebois has executed all those contracts and the building has been taken possession of and occupied for some years by the Government.

That the total amount received by Mr. Charlebois, on account of those several contracts, has been as follows:—

Amount of contract for the main building                  $295,000 00

Additional work in connection with main building including sidewalks                                                                   137,413 07

Amount of contract for iron roof                                60,000 00

Additional work in connection with iron roof            3,858 33

Amount of contract for iron stairs                              11,040 00

Additional work in connection with iron stairs          6,823 61

__________

Total                                                                            $514,135 01

Deduction for works included in contract but not executed                                                                                       22,113 64

__________

$492,022 37

Amount paid on account to Mr. Charlebois               490,060 00

__________

Balance                                                                       $1,962 37

[Page 12]

That, however, in connection with the said several contracts, Mr. Charlebois has claimed to be paid the sum set forth in the following statement:—

Amount of contract for the main building                  $295,000 00

Additional work in connection with main building   390,006 64

Amount of contract for iron roof                                60,000 00

Additional work in connection with roof                   19,671 84

Amount of contract for iron stairs                              11,040 00

Additional work in connection with stairs                 10,598 19

__________

Total                                                                            $786,317 57

Amount paid on account                                             490,060 00

__________

Amount claimed                                                         $296,257 57

That, the matter of the said claim has been the subject of much investigation and examination by the Department, and of several communications both written and verbal, between the contractor, Mr. Charlebois, and the Department, and that up to the present time, no advance has been made towards a settlement which would be satisfactory to both parties.

That, however, the last investigation, which has taken place upon this claim, shows that a further award of say $18,000, could be made to the contractor, which, added to the sum of $1,962, still due on the final estimate of the chief architect, would make a total of about S20,000. This amount with an additional sum of say, $5,000, representing the Government’s share of law costs, expenses, &c., which would necessarily be incurred, were the matters in dispute left to a court of law, together with the further large sum involved in the interpretation of parts of the specification referring to the stone and iron work, none of which have been considered favourably by the chief architect, and form a large portion of the claim, would make a total of $25,000, which might be offered to the contractor, Mr. Charlebois, in full and final settlement.

That the contract for the construction of the building provides, in its 33rd clause, that all matters of difference arising between the parties thereto upon any matter arising out of the contract shall be referred to the award and arbitration of the chief architect, and that the award of such chief architect shall be final and conclusive, and that such award shall be a condition precedent to the right of the contractor to receive or be paid any sums on account of such matters of difference.

That by reason of the said public building being situated in the city of Ottawa, it has received, during its construction, the personal and very close supervision of the present- chief architect, Mr. Fuller, and that the difference which bas arisen and given birth to the claim now presented has been a matter of frequent discussion, during the course of the construction of the work, between the chief architect himself and the contractor; that the chief architect, by the clause of the contract above quoted, is now called upon to arbitrate and award, in a final and decisive manner, upon points in dispute where, during the construction of the work, he was himself at variance with the contractor, and that, under such circumstances, he happens to be both a party to the case and an arbitrator awarding upon the same, and lie feels that it would probably be more satisfactory to the Department and to the contractor if the duty of giving a final decision passed to other hands.

That the contractor, Mr. Charlebois, has also objected to Mr. Fuller acting in the dual capacity of superintending architect and final arbitrator in the settlement of the claim, and has asked that the matter be referred to outside arbitrators to be named in the usual manner.

That in view of the fact that the matters of the difference between the Department and the contractor all refer to items of work where the opinion of experts would be the best that could be obtained, the Department of Justice has been asked to give an opinion as to whether the law would authorize the substitution of another arbitrator in the place of the chief architect as provided for in the contract.

[Page 13]

Appointments.

That the Deputy Minister of Justice has stated that he is of opinion that such substitution might be made by the authority of the Governor General in Council and with the contractor’s consent and that he sees no objection, legally, to a reference to a competent arbitrator, under the approval of His Excellency the Governor General in Council.

In view of the above facts, the undersigned has the honour to recommend:

1st. That the sum of $25,000, in addition to any amount paid up to date, be offered to Mr. Charlebois, without prejudice, and in full and final settlement of his claim on account of his several contracts connected with the construction of the new Departmental Building in Ottawa.

2nd. That, in the event of Mr. Charlebois refusing to accept that sum, authority be given to refer the claim as above stated, amounting to a total of $296,257.57, to three arbitrators, the said arbitrators to be Messrs. Alphonse Raza, architect and J. O. Alfred Laforest, civil engineer of Montreal, with Mr. Walter Shanly as third arbitrator or referee.

3rd. That, before any action to be taken on the finding of the said arbitrators, their award be laid before His Excellency the Governor General in Council.

4th. That the cost, of the said arbitration be paid by the contractor should the award not exceed the sum of $10,000, above named, but in case of an award exceeding that sum, said cost be paid by the Government.

Respectfully submitted,

ALPH. DESJARDINS,

Minister of Public Works.

[Page 14]

EXTRACT from a Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council approved by His Excellency on the 8th July, 1896.

On a report dated 29th June, 1896, from the Minister of Public Works stating that on the 21st day of May, 1889, the Department of Public Works entered into a contract with Messrs. Murray & Cleveland for the construction of certain works at the eastern entrance of Toronto Harbour, involving the dredging of a channel and the construction of channel protection works-a copy of which contract is hereto attached.

That on the 18th day of June, 1890, an Order in Council was passed directing certain changes in the work, on condition that the additional work entailed thereby should be paid for at the rates named in the schedule of the contract, and the said contractors agreed to construct such additional work upon those terms. That, subsequently in October, 1890, the then Chief Engineer of Public Works ordered further additions or changes to the works, viz. :-the widening of the protection works from twenty to thirty feet, and from eight to eighteen feet and twenty-two feet in depth, and from twenty to forty feet in width, and twenty-two feet in depth respectively, and the deepening of the channel from twelve feet to sixteen feet, and the widening of it to four hundred feet; and the contractors carried out all of these works in accordance with these requirements, although before proceeding therewith, they protested that they ought not to be considered as covered by the schedule of the contract, and they gave notice that higher prices would be claimed by them for the increased and enlarged works.

The Minister states that the contractors completed the works in accordance with the changes last above referred to, and were paid therefor only at the respective rates set out in the schedule for the various classes of work. They, therefore, claim that the changes last above mentioned were changes, additions, or extras, which, under the circumstances, ought not to be considered as provided for in the schedule prices mentioned in the contract, and they claim in respect thereof, the sum of $88,658.90, in addition to the schedule rates already paid to them.

The Minister further states that the Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works, to whom this claim was referred, has reported that, in his opinion, the works as constructed are of a superior character to the works as designed, but. while admitting that the benefit to the Crown has been substantial in this respect, he is not prepared to allow that the increased works, made necessary by the changes above referred to, were additions, changes, or extras, under the contract, and has expressed a doubt whether or not, under the contract, he would be justified in allowing in respect to the same, any higher prices than set out in the contract.

The Minister further states that the contractors are desirous of obtaining the judgment of an impartial tribunal upon the merits of their claim, to which he, (the Minister) sees no objection, and to that end it will be necessary that certain clauses of the contract which are inserted for the protection of the Department of Public Works against unjust claims, and under which technical defence could, if necessary be set up, should be waived, in order that this matter may be dealt with upon the merits.

The Minister, under these circumstances, recommends that the said claim be referred to the Judge of the Exchequer Court to inquire, determine and award whether, upon the facts, as the same shall be ascertained before him, the said changes made in or about October, 1890, with reference to the increase in size of the crib-work, and the increase in the depth and width of the channel, are or constitute changes, additions, deviations, or extra works within the meaning of section 5 of the contract, or of section 10 of the specifications, or of any other provision of either of them, in respect to which, assuming that all conditions precedent have been complied with, it would be necessary that the Engineer should fix a price, or set a value upon it; and, secondly, in case the foregoing be determined by the said Judge in the affirmative, and the Judge is of opinion that the payment already made is not a full, just and equitable payment therefor then the Judge is to inquire, determine and award a fair just, equitable and

[Page 15]

Appointments.

reasonable price which, having regard to the nature and value of the work performed, and to the surrounding circumstances, should be paid in addition to the scheduled prices; to allow, if he thinks proper to do so, such interest on such additional amounts allowed as under the circumstances, be considers. equitable; and at the hearing thereof, before the said Judge, or in any preliminary pleadings or other proceedings in the said cause, matter or investigation, the Crown shall not plead, or set up in answer to, or defence of the said claim, or any part thereof, any matter or thing which, in the said contract or specification, might be construed to be a condition precedent to the successful presentation or prosecution of the said claim on the part of the contractors, amongst which, but without attempting an exhaustive enumeration of them, may be instanced the provision of section 5, and a written direction and notification were necessary before the work was begun, and that the price should have been previously fixed in writing and approved of by the Minister of Public Works; the provisions of sections, 6, 19, 22, and 27; the provisions of sections 28 and 29, with reference to the presentation of claims; the provisions of section 36, and the provisions of section 37, with reference to the implication a-; to contracts; and clauses 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, and the last cause of 48 of the specification, and those various provisions throughout the contract and specifications which makes the Chief Engineer or the Engineer the Judge or Arbitrator in respect of all questions under the contract, or which require his decision before making claim; and all other similar provisions ai to conditions precedent, the intention being to place the Judge of the Exchequer Court in the position of the Engineer or the Chief Engineer of Public Works, as the case may be, so that he may deal with and decide the case, and every part of it upon the merits, and according to fair play and justice, as well to the contractors as to the Department of Public Works.

The Minister further recommends that authority be granted to confer upon the Judge of the Exchequer Court, if the Department of Public Works think it necessary, by commission or otherwise as may seem advisable, jurisdiction to hear and determine the said matters in accordance with the reference made in this Minute.

The Committee submit the foregoing recommendations for Your Excellency’s approval.

JOHN J. MCGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Page 16]

2575.

EXTRACT from a Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency on the 8th July, 1896.

On a report dated 30th June, 1896, from the Minister of Justice submitting in reference to the subject of the consolidation and revision of the Public Statutes of Canada:

1. That in view of the lapse of ten years since the last revision of the Statutes, it will be necessary that within another year a measure be submitted to Parliament for the consolidation and revision once more of the Statutes to date, and in order to facilitate the preparation of a measure to be submitted to Parliament for this purpose it is desirable that a commission be appointed to draft such a bill.

2. That it is desirable that such commission should be charged with the duty of going over and revising the Revised Statutes, and all legislation of the Parliament of Canada passed since the date thereof, together with any legislation passed in the several provinces prior to Confederation, if any such legislation is still outstanding, and all other legislative Acts upon subjects over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction. And should frame for submission to Parliament a bill for the consolidation and revision of the said legislation, and report the same to His Excellency the Governor General in Council. And that said commission should further report any amendments which, while not coming within the strict lines of a revision, seem to them nevertheless to be such as should be submitted as amendments to existing legislation, for greater clearness and certainty, or convenience, for the judgment of Parliament. And to this end it is desirable that a commission should be appointed immediately composed of persons familiar with the Statute laws under consideration.

3. The Minister recommends that the commission be composed as follows:

1. The Honourable L. F. G. Baby, chairman, at a salary of $1,500 per annum to be voted by Parliament.

2. E. Coatsworth, Jr., Toronto, at a salary of $1,000 per annum, to be appropriated by Parliament, and that R. V. Sinclair of Ottawa be secretary to said commission at a salary to be hereafter settled upon.

3. J. G. Aylwin Creighton, Law Clerk of the Senate.

4. F. A. McCord, Law Clerk of the House of Commons.

5. Edmund L. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice.

The three last to be paid such remuneration as shall be fixed and provided by the House of Commons.

4. It is also desirable that the Minister of Justice for the time being should be ex-officio a member of this commission.

The committee submit the above recommendation for Your Excellency’s approval.

JOHN J. MCGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Page 17]

Appointments.

2684.

EXTRACT from a Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency on the 8th July, 1896.

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, submit for Your Excellency’s approval the annexed list of gentlemen to be respectively appointed to be of Her Majesty’s Counsel learned in the Law.

JOHN J. MCGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

(Annex A to O. C. No. 2684—8th July, 1896.)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CANADA, OTTAWA, 3rd July, 1896.

To His EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL:

The undersigned has the honour to recommend that the following gentlemen, who are Barristers-at-Law, be respectively appointed to be of Her Majesty’s Counsel learned in the Law, and that Commissions do issue to them similar to those issued under the Order in Council of the Ilth October, 1880, viz.:—

Ontario.

[Page 18]

Quebec.

Nova Scotia.

New Brunswick.

Prince Edward Island.

Manitoba.

North-west Territories.

British Columbia.

Respectfully submitted,

A.R. DICKEY,

Minister of Justice.

[Page 19]

Appointments.

[Page 20]

[Page 21]

[Page 22]

D

MINUTES OF COUNCIL, CANCELLING CERTAIN MINUTES OF COUNCIL PASSED BETWEEN 23rd JUNE and 10th JULY, 1896.

2751.

EXTRACT from a Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency on the 17th July, 1896.

On a Report, dated 14th. July, 1896, from the Minister of Public Works, submitting that, on the 8th July instant (1896) an Order in Council was passed on a report dated 29th of June last, granting authority to refer to the Judge of the Exchequer Court a claim preferred by Messrs. Murray and Cleveland in connection with their contract of the 21st of May, 1889, for the construction of certain works at the eastern entrance of the harbour at Toronto.

That the reference in question was stated to be made on condition that the Crown should not plead before the said judge, or set up any defence in the matter, which, under the contract, or specifications might be construed to be a condition precedent to the successful presentation or prosecution of the claim on the part of the contractors, certain provisions of the contract being set aside and the intention being to place the Judge of the Exchequer Court in the position of the Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works so that he might deal with the case upon its merits and according to fair play and justice.

That, on the above conditions, it was recommended that if the Department of Public Works think it necessary, authority be granted to confer upon the Judge of the Exchequer Court, by commission or otherwise, jurisdiction to hear that case in accordance with the mode of reference recommended.

The Minister has taken communication of the above Order in Council, and, after consultation with his officers, he does not think that it is in the public interest that the Crown should divest itself of any rights which are in its possession and which owe their existence to the provisions of the various clauses of the contract voluntarily entered into by the contractors.

The Minister further considers that the Department of Public Works is fully competent under the said clauses of that contract to award and determine upon the merits of the said claim.

The Minister, in view of the above facts, recommends that, as it is not in the public interest to follow the course indicated by the said Order in Council of the 8^th July, 1896, the said Order in Council be cancelled.

The Commit tee submit the above recommendation for Your Excellency’s approval.

JOHN J. MCGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

2752.

EXTRACT from a Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency on the 17th July, 1896.

On a report dated 14th July, 1896, from the Minister of Public Works, submitting that on the 6th July instant, (1896) an Order in Council was passed authorizing the approval of a report made by the Minister of Public Works on the 20th May last, recommending the reference of the claims laid by Mr. Alphonse Charlebois against the Department of Public Works, in connection with his contract for the construction of a new departmental building on Wellington street, in this city, to a commission composed of Messrs. Alphonse Raza, Architect, J. O. Laforest, Engineer, and Walter Shanley, Engineer, of Montreal.

[Page 23]

Appointments.

That in the said Report it was stated that by reason of the fact that the building in question was situated in the City of Ottawa, the Chief Architect gave it his personal supervision and had occasion to arbitrate and award upon many points in dispute during such construction, and that officer reported on 1st June last that, on that account, he had no objection to the claims arising under the contract being referred to a Commission of Arbitrators as was suggested.

That that officer now further reports, however, that his statement as to the advisability of referring the matter to a Commission of Architects did not mean that he declined to discharge the duties imposed upon him by the 33rd clause of the contract nor that he did not think himself competent to discharge the said duties, and that he believes that in this case, as well as in former cases when other contracts were dealt with, he is fully competent, able and willing to act as arbitrator between the Department of Public Works and the contractor as provided by the contract.

The Minister has taken into consideration the Order in Council above referred to as well as the reports of the Chief Architect and he does not believe that it is in, the public interest that the commission in question be appointed, and that the powers granted under that Order in Council be made use of.

The Minister, having consulted the officers of the Department of Public Works on the matter, finds that they are in a position to deal with the claim preferred by Mr. Charlebois, and he is further of opinion that it would not be sound policy nor in the public interest for the Department of Public Works Io lay aside the powers granted by the contract entered into, which he believes should be held to govern, not only during the course of the contract but also in all matters connected with the final closing of the said contract.

The Minister, in view of the above facts, recommends that the Order in Council of the 6th July instant, giving authority to appoint a Commission of Architects to investigate into the claims preferred by Mr. Alphonse Charlebois be cancelled and that the matter be left in the hands of the Department of Public Works to be settled as required by the clauses of the contract entered into by Mr. Charlebois with the Department of Public Works on the 20th September, 1883.

The Committee submit the above recommendation for Your Excellency’s approval.

JOHN J. MCGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

EXTRACT from a Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency on the 1st August, 1896.

The Committee of the Privy Council, having had under consideration the annexed Report, dated the 16th day of July, 1896, from the Honourable the Minister of Justice upon the Order in Council of the 8th July, instant, appointing certain members of the Bars of Canada to be of Her Majesty’s Counsel, learned in the law, and concurring therein, submit the same for Your Excellency’s approval.

JOHN J. MCGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF CANADA,

OTTAWA, 16th July, 1896.

To His Excellency

The Governor General in Council.

The undersigned has had under consideration an Order in Council dated the 8^th instant, appointing 173 members of the Bars of Canada to be of Her Majesty’s Counsel learned in the law, otherwise called Queen’s Counsel. These are in addition to 481 appointed since Confederation, of which number 84 were appointed between the 1^st July, 1867, and the 5^th November, 1873, and 397 after the 16^th October, 1878. No appointments were made in the period between the 5^th November, 1873, and the 16^th October, 1878, being the period of Mr. Mackenzie’s administration. Thus the number

[Page 24]

appointed previously to the recent order had been enormous, and the addition to it now of 173 more as recommended to Your Excellency, is startling. In England it appears from the Law List of 1895 that the total number of Queen’s Counsel there at the time of making up the list was only 21i, and it appears that the total number appointed for twenty-two years up to 1895, inclusive, was only 254, while the number of barristers in England exceeds by several times the number in Canada.

No commission has yet issued under the recent order and the undersigned is of opinion that the order should not be acted upon and should be rescinded, on account of the excessive number named, and for additional reasons which he will now mention.

The undersigned desires first to state for the information of Your Excellency that the question of the respective rights and powers of the Dominion and Provincial Governments as to such appointments has been a matter of controversy for several years, the exclusive right of making such appointments having been claimed on behalf of the Dominion as a prerogative of the Crown, which, it is said, could only be exercised by the Governor General for the time being;—and some of the Judges of the Supreme Court, in the case of Lemoir and Ritchie, so held. An opinion to the contrary was given by Sir Horace Davey (now Lord Davey), and Mr. Haldine, another distinguished member of the English Bar; and the claim made on behalf of the Dominion was otherwise controverted.

Some official correspondence on the subject has been printed among the Sessional Papers of the province of Ontario for the year 1888, vol. 20, part IV, No. 37.

A case on the subject was four years ago submitted to the Court of Appeal of Ontario. The necessary papers were printed and delivered, and the matter was ripe for argument early in 1893, but no argument has yet taken place, in consequence of the refusal of the Dominion Government of that time to appoint counsel on behalf of the Dominion, the Court declining to hear argument on one side only.

No other mode of obtaining a decision was suggested or proposed on behalf of the Dominion Government.

The undersigned intends to employ counsel forthwith, so that the argument may be proceeded with, and a decision obtained, with the least possible delay.

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal will be subject to revision by the Supreme Court of Canada, and by Her Majesty’s Privy Council, in case the decision which may be given by the Court of Appeal should not be satisfactory to all parties.

The undersigned respectfully submits that no appointments should be made until a final decision is obtained on this point.

The undersigned is informed that the publication of the names contained in the recent Order has created a sensation among members of the profession and others, that the list has been very generally disapproved of, and that the disapproval is shared by some who are named on the list, as well as by gentlemen previously holding the rank of Queen’s Counsel, and by others.

An examination of the list shows that the selection of the names was not made on the basis of professional or personal merit. On the contrary, there are names in the list of gentlemen in regard to whom there could be no pretence or supposition of their having any claim on that ground, and, on the other hand, many gentlemen have been omitted from the list whose professional merit exceeds that of many of those named.

Queen’s Counsel have precedence in the courts over other barristers, and obviously there is great injustice in a bestowal of the honour and the precedence upon inferior barristers to the prejudice of those better entitled thereto.

Such a wholesale and indiscriminate selection as was recommended to Your Excellency is a degradation of the office and is a grievance as regards the bar generally, instead of being a merited honour to those appointed.

The existence of the degree is useful if the jurisdiction to make the appointments is reasonably exercised. In England the appointments are made by the Lord Chancellor, and it is stated in a recent legal publication that an applicant for the appointment has.to communicate by letter to barristers of longer standing than himself (not being Queen’s Counsel) his intention to apply; and that before making any appointment the Lord Chancellor submits to the judges the names of the applicants whom lie thinks of appointing.

[Page 25]

If, in this country the power of appointment belongs exclusively to Your Excellency in Council, it will be well to consider hereafter whether some checks may not and should not be devised to confine within proper bounds the recommendations made to the Governor General for the time being.

Meanwhile the undersigned respectfully recommends that, as a matter of justice to the profession and in the interest of the public, the order which has been made be rescinded, and that the consideration of any appointments be deferred until the jurisdiction to make such appointments shall be judicially decided and declared.

All which is respectfully submitted.

O. MOWAT.

2898.

EXTRACT from a Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency on the 20th August, 1896.

On a Report, dated 10th August, 1896, from the Minister of Justice, submitting that by an Order in Council, dated 19th of May, 1896, the Honourable Louis Francois George Baby, a Member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, was appointed, as therein expressed, one of the Commissioners for the codification of the Statutes, and by a subsequent Order, dated 8th July, 1896, Commissioners for the revision and consolidation of the Statutes of Canada, were appointed, consisting of the said Honourable L. F. G. Baby, as Chairman; E. L. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice; J. G. A. Creighton, Law Clerk of the Senate; F. A. McCord, Law Clerk of the House of Commons, and E. Coatsworth, Jr., and by the same Order in Council, R. V. Sinclair was appointed Secretary to the said Commission.

The Minister further states it was further provided by the last mentioned Order in Council that Mr. Baby should receive a salary of $1,500 per annum to be voted by Parliament; that Mr. E. L. Newcombe, Mr. Creighton and Mr. McCord should be paid such remuneration as shall be fixed and provided by the House of Commons, that Mr. Coatsworth should receive a salary of $1,000 per annum, to be appropriated by Parliament, and that Mr. Sinclair should be paid a salary to be thereafter settled upon.

The Minister observes that it was further stated by the said last Order in Council that it was desirable that the Minister of Justice, for the time being, should be, ex-officio, a member of the Commission.

The Minister further observes that these appointments were not authorized by any statute, nor has any provision been made for any portion of the expenses of the Commission.

The Minister, therefore, recommends that the two Orders in Council mentioned be rescinded, and that the consideration of appointments of Commissioners be deferred until parliamentary authority shall be obtained therefor.

The Committee submit the above recommendation for Your Excellency’s approval.

JOHN J. MCGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Page 1]

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE

(7d)

Respecting certain proposed appointments and Orders in Council.

To the Honourable the Privy Council.

MEMORANDUM with reference to the Treasury Board Reports numbered 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614, 2640, and 2653, which are returned herewith subject to this memorandum and signed by the Governor General, having been submitted to him on the 6th and 7th instant.

The undersigned is directed by the Governor General to request that pending their further consideration by Council, His Excellency’s approval be withheld f rom all recommendations which involve,—

1.—The creation of new offices or appointments.

2.—The filling of vacancies for which no provision has been made by Parliament and which have existed for more than one clear fiscal year.

3.—Superannuations, (and the consequential appointments) for which application has not been received.

By Command.

JOHN SINCLAIR,

Governor General’s Secretary.

July 8th, 1896.

Memorandum for the Honourable the Pre8ident of the Privy Council.

Treasury Board Reports, numbered 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614, 2640, and 2653, were considered in Council on Saturday and Monday the 4th and 6th July, and were signed on the latter date, namely 6th July, by Mr. Angers, President of the Privy Council.

Numbers 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614, and 2640 were despatched to the Governor General’s Secretary by special messenger on Monday, and number 2653 was despatched by special messenger also, on Tuesday morning, the 7th July.

JOHN J. MCGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Page 2]

APPOINTMENTS—VACANCIES—SUPERANNUATIONS.

[Page 3]

[Page 4]

[Page 5]

Appointments.

Appointments-Vacancies-Superannuations-Continued.

[Page 6]

Appointments—Vacancies—Superannuations—Continued.

[Page 7]

Appointments—Vacancies—Superannuations—Concluded.

[Page 1]

ORDER IN COUNCIL

(7e)

RESPECTING CERTAIN PROPOSED APPOINTMENTS.

—–o0o—–

EXTRACT from a report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency on the 16th September, 1896.

The Council have had under consideration the following memorandum of His Excellency the Governor General, dated 8th July 1896

To the Honourable the Privy Council:

“Memorandum with reference to the Treasury Board Reports, numbered 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614, 2640 and 2653, which are returned herewith subject to this Memorandum and signed by the Governor General, having being submitted to him on the 6th and 7th instant.

“The undersigned is directed by the Governor General to request that, pending their further consideration by Council, His Excellency’s approval be withheld from all recommendations which involve.—1. The creation of new office§ or appointments.—2. The filling of vacancies for which no provision has been made by Parliament, and which have existed for more than one clear fiscal year.—3. Superannuations (and the consequential appointments) for which application has not been received.

“By Command,

“JOHN SINCLAIR,

“Governor General’s Secretary.

“July 8th, 1896.”

The Council is of opinion that the several recommendations, set out in the Schedule hereto annexed, marked ” A,” come within the category of those f rom which your Excellency withheld your approval; and that those set out in the Schedule hereto annexed, marked “B,” do not come within such category:

And the Council advise accordingly.

JOHN J. MCGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Page 2]

SCHEDULE A.—Showing Recommendations of Treasury Board, as submitted by Report of Council to His Excellency the Governor General, on 6th and 7th July, 1896, and not intended to be approved by him.

[Page 3]

Appointments.

SCHEDULE A.-Showing Recommendations of Treasury Board, &c—Continued.

SCHEDULE B.—Showing recommendations of Treasury Board as submitted by Report of Council to His Excellency the Governor General on 6th and 7th July, 1896, and intended to be approved by him.

[Page 4]

SCHEDULE B.—Showing Recommendations of Treasury Board, &c.—Continued.