Document Information

Date: 1868-02-17
By: Nova Scotia (House of Assembly)
Citation: Nova Scotia, House of Assembly, Debates on Resolutions Relative to Repeal of the “British North America Act”, 24th Parl, 1st Sess, 1868 at 82-83.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

Click here to view the rest of Nova Scotia’s Repeal Debates for 1868.

DEBATE OF THE REPEAL RESOLUTIONS.

[Page 82]

MONDAY, 17th Feby.

The House met at 3 o’clock.

Mr. ELKANAH YOUNG presented a petition from Mount Uniacke, and introduced a bill in accordance with the prayer thereof, asking that that settlement be incorporated into West Hants.

Mr. RYERSON presented a petition from a Way Office Keeper, asking for a larger salary.

Mr. KIDSTON, a petition for money.

Mr. BLANCHARD, a petition for certain remuneration.

Mr. J. McDONALD, from School section, No. 9, St. Andrews, praying for an alteration in the School Law.

Mr. NORTHUP, from A Coffie, of the Cumberland Hotel, Amherst, in reference to the License Law.

Mr. PURDY, also two petitions on the same subject.

The order of the day, the drawing of a Committee to consider the petition against the return of Mr. Blanchard, was then taken up.

Mr. BLANCHARD entered a protest against the petition on the ground that no legal and sufficient security has been filed—the securities being two members of the House.

Hon. SPEAKER said he had looked over the authorities, but he could not find an instance of any petitioner having two members of the same Legislature as securities, but perhaps the hon. gentleman, or his counsel, would cite some precedent.

Mr. BLANCHARD asked that he be heard by his counsel at the Bar.

The motion was granted, and JAMES McDONALD, Esq., appeared at the bar and addressed the House against the validity of the petition. He argued that it was contrary to the dignity of the House that members should act as securities in cases where they

[Page 83]

were acting as a Court. It should be remembered, he argued, that the Legislature was the highest court from which there was no appeal, and consequently there was greater necessity to do nothing that might tend to the injury of those whose interests were in their hands. No precedents could be found anywhere—either in England or the colonies—for such a case as was now under consideration. It had been decided in the courts below that a member of Parliament cannot be received as bail, because, although he may be worth the money a hundred times over, yet he cannot be called upon to respond on account of his privilege. In elucidation of this point the learned gentleman cited several cases from May. Saunton, &c. In May, he added, it is stated that there is an order of the House, that members of the Commons being barristers are not to appear before the House of Lords in matters which are likely to come before the House. What would be thought of a member of Parliament accepting a fee or reward in connection with matters before the House? The independence of the House would not be preserved if the members were made directly interested in matters concerning money that came before them.

On the conclusion of Mr. McDonald’s remarks, the galleries were cleared, and the question considered with closed doors.

On resuming the following committee was struck: Mr. Ross, Hon. Mr. Robertson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Freeman, Mr. D. McDonald, Mr. Lawrence. The committee was called together for Wednesday.

The House then adjourned.