Document Information

Date: 1867-05-16
By: Prince Edward Island (House of Assembly)
Citation: Prince Edward Island, House of Assembly, The Parliamentary Reporter; or, Debates and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of Prince Edward Island, For the Year 1867, 23rd Parl, 1st Sess, 1865 at 138-145.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

Click here to view the rest of Prince Edward Island’s Confederation Debates for 1867.

Militia Bill.

House again in committee on Militia Bill.

Dr. JENKINS submitted a resolution which was to the effect that a man who had to serve in the militia might be allowed to find a substitute. He thought that the resolution contained a principle which would work well. It would be a great loss to the country to call every man out; many men would not take ten, or even fifteen dollars, for their day; and, moreover, there were many men who would not go to drill cheerfully, while substituted would. He considered it better, therefore, to allow men to choose others to act for them—men who had a taste for these duties. He thought that it would be a source of strength to the militia. A large number of men were sometimes called out, who had no officers to drill them, and they, of course, could attain no efficiency in the military art. If he thought this resolution would have the effect of weakening the force, he would not have moved it; but he believed that the contrary would be the case.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION said the principle laid down in the amendment was a new and important one, and would require more attention than could now be given to it. At some future time the system might be carried out. He thought the ideas of the hon. member were good; but this was not the proper time to introduce them. Some hon. members had gone home, and it would be unfair to them to bring forward new matter now.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The principle, no doubt, was good, but it involved a question entirely new, and would require the Bill to be amended all through. He agreed with the hon. and learned member, the Leader of the Opposition, that as some hon. members had left, and as there was no notice of the resolution, it would be better not to press its consideration upon the House just now.

Hon. LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT thought that it would not do to call out the militia for a longer period than six days’ drill. To work out the idea of the hon. member for Charlottetown, it would

[Page 139]

take more machinery than we could provide. The Volunteer force was very well, and that was the most important part of the service. Time was the great object to the militia, and if they were called out for six days, he considered that it would be quite long enough. They should not be called out after the fifteenth of July, and he thought five days long enough time to have them out in one year.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION could not agree that it would be prudent to strike out the number “ten days.” The law did not say that they should serve so long; it merely said that the time should not exceed “ten days.” Perhaps they would not be called out for more than one day. We did not know how soon we might be in the midst of a war, and if such should ever happen, then it would be of the highest importance to be able to call out the militia a period for efficient drilling. If the Government considered time such a matter of importance to the agricultural portion of the people, perhaps there would be no need to call them out at all. If the law said they must be called out it would be quite different, but it did not; it only said that they might be called out for a period not to exceed ten days. In Nova Scotia the Government could call them out for a period of twenty-eight days.

Dr. JENKINS supposed the fault was his own in bringing the resolution forward; but certainly he failed to perceive the force of the arguments advanced, or of the reasons which had been given. If the amendment was not to be passed this year he would withdraw it.

Mr. HOWAT believed the number of days could not exceed ten, and the militia might not be called out once in the year. He felt disposed to compliment the other side of the House for the support they had given to this Bill.

Hon. Mr. LAIRD was under the impression, from what had fallen from the hon. member for Georgetown, that he considered the power to call out the militia was in the hands of the Government. His (Mr. Laird’s) opinion had been that it was the prerogative of the Commander-in-Chief.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION.—The power was in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief; but the Government for the time being was responsible for the action of the Commander-in-Chief when he called out the militia or volunteer forces.

Hon. Mr. HENDERSON said it was admitted that we were under responsible government; but if the hon. member for Bedeque was right, the contrary was the case, and the late Government had been, in some instances, wrongly blamed. He could not see the force of the hon. member’s remarks; but then he would excuse him, as no doubt he had not had sufficient time yet to gain experience in these matters; but under responsible government there were few acts for which the Commander-in-Chief was personally responsible. He received advice from his nine councillors, and they were held responsible for what he did. As to the ten days’ drill, he would say in reply to the Leader of the Government, that it was entirely in the hands of the Government to regulate the time; they might make it one day or ten, but it could not exceed ten. If this House, however, limited the time, and tied the Government down, why the Executive could not act at all. He would prefer leaving that part of the Bill as it was. He believed that the amendment of the hon. member contained a good principle, but being new might not suit here, and would therefore require more mature consideration. As the people were to be materially affected by it before it was adopted, they should have it brought to their notice through the press. Such was the course adopted in Great Britain, and by it the public mind was prepared for any change that was considered advisable to be introduced. It would be preferable to see it coming in with the consent of the people.

Hon. Mr. LAIRD.—Notwithstanding the light with which the hon. member for Murray Harbor had endeavored to surround his ideas, he had not, certainly, made the matter very clear; yet, if it was to be understood that the Government was to be responsible for the manner in which this service was to be performed, it was well to know it. But he (Hon. Mr. Laird) still thought that in these matters an independent power was placed in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION said that if the hon. member would refer to the British authorities, he would find that the power was in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief; but at the same time this power was placed in the hands of the Government as a part of the legitimate functions of responsible government; and the hon. member, so long as he remained in the Executive, would find that the Government would and must be held responsible for the acts of the Commander-in-Chief.

Hon. LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT said it was not pleasant for the Commander-in-Chief to have to call the people out to muster for so long a time as ten days in each year; he would, therefore, like to see the time reduced to five or six days, and would move that the time be reduced to five days.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION thought if the hon. member would but give the matter a little more consideration. He would arrive at quite a different conclusion. When in 1843 the drills for the volunteers were much shorter than they were now, there was a remonstance against the shortness of the time. It would be seen also by the Bill of last tear that they could be called out for ten days only, while in Nova Scotia they could be called out for twenty-eight days, and in New Brunswick and Canada the requirements were more stringent still. He thought a reproach might be cast upon our loyalty if we were to reduce the time.

Hon. ATTY. GENERAL considered such an amendment would be a rash movement.

Dr. JENKINS thought if such an amendment was carried, it would be as well to pitch the Bill altogether. If such was made, many of the Volunteers would fall off.

Mr. P. SINCLAIR would be very willing to have any amendment that would benefit the movement, but he believed that if this one was carried it would destroy the affair altogether. As long as the country had

[Page 140]

confidence in the men who ruled them, they could safely leave the matter with them. He was very far from wishing to make farmers military men, but if we were going to have a law let us make it as perfect and as useful as possible.

Hon. LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT read an extract which showed that the Act did not necessitate the culling out of the militia at all, and therefore it was not improbable that by reasoning with the Commander-in-Chief he might not call them out, unless there was actual necessity for it.

Hon. Mr. DAVIES.—If the law was that a portion of the militia were to be called out, then such a thing as drilling for ten days might be accomplished; but as the matter now stood, it could not be carried out, and unless there was more necessity than existed at present, it was better to call out none.

Hon. Mr. HOWLAN said that in some settlements two-thirds of the people were fishermen, and it was unreasonable to suppose that they could all be got to attend muster on the same day; and what was the use of having a Bill that would be so obnoxious that people would not yield a cheerful assent to it. If the drill was for one or two days, it would be quite different. Take for instance an establishment where there were 210 fishermen employed; if you asked the half of these men to go one day, and the other half to go another, the probability was they would do so; but that they all could be got to attend drill for ten days was what he did not believe. He thought that a volunteer force of 100 men well drilled, would be more effective than 900 ordinary militia men. He believed if there were two or three thousand well armed and well drilled volunteers, that they could be made the nucleus of an effective force; but in carrying out a measure of this kind, care must be taken that it was not made too stringent. In some parts of his (hon. Mr. Hawlan’s) district, people lived two miles apart, and many would have to go from ten to twelve miles to attend drill. He thought if half were called out, and substitutes allowed to be taken, that it would be an improvement.

Hon. Mr. DAVIES felt disposed to oppose the Bill throughout. He did not consider that it was founded upon the principles of the Despatch from the Home Government. He thought that we should have a force so well trained that if an attack was made upon us the same could be made immediately available; and although we were unwilling to go into Confederation, yet we were willing to contribute our due proportion and fair share for the support of an efficient volunteer force, or an efficient militia. The reason he had opposed this Bill throughout was because it did not make a provision that was really practicable.

Mr. Speaker then resumed the chair, and the chairman reported that the committee had gone through the Bill and made several amendments thereto; which amendments were again read at the clerk’s table, and agreed to by the House, and ordered to be engrossed.