Document Information

Date: 1867-04-22
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 5-16.
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.

MONDAY, April 22.

Hon. Attorney General moved that the House do adopt the usual Resolution touching the distribution of a certain number of copies of the Journals. In submitting which, he observed that it would be necessary to forward copies to the Governmental departments of the Provinces recently Confederated.

Hon. Mr. HAVILAND asked the Hon. Attorney General if he admitted that Confederation was a fixed fact.

Hon. Mr. DUNCAN remarked that the people of Nova Scotia were driven into Confederation without their consent—they were denied the privilege of an appeal to the Polls.

Mr. HOWAT did not see the necessity of recognizing the Confederated Government, as it was termed, for it could scarcely be said that it had, as yet, an existence—certainly it was not yet in working order, and, therefore, it was unnecessary on the part of that House to give it any hasty recognition.

Hon. Mr. DAVIES said the fact that the Bill for Confederating Canada and the two Maritime Provinces had passed the Imperial Parliament, and received Her Majesty’s Royal assent, rendering it necessary that the House should recognize it. He thought the views of some hon. members of the Opposition must have been considerably modified on the question of Confederation, for it appeared that they had nominated the Hon. Mr. Haviland, who was a strong Confederate, as their Leader.

After some further remarks from hon. members, the resolution was put and agreed to.

Hon. Mr. HAVILAND remarked that the names of the new Administration had not been announced to the House, nor was it made known whom hon. members should address as Leader of the Government.

Hon. Mr. HENSLEY, Attorney General, replied, and read the names of His Excellency’s responsible advisers. He remarked that the Hon. Mr. Coles, Colonial Secretary and President of the Executive Council, having just been triumphantly elected by the people, would in a few days be able to take his seat as the Leader of the Government.

[Page 6]

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Debate on the Draft Address in Answer to His Excellency’s Speech.

On motion of Hon. Mr. KELLY, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole, to take into consideration the Draft Address in answer to His Excellency’s Speech at the opening of the Session,—Mr. BELL in the Chair.

The 1st paragraph was agreed to without remark.

On the 2d paragraph being read—

Hon. Mr. HENSLEY rose to move its adoption, and said:—Mr. Chairman: This clause may not meet with the approval of all hon. members, though I am unable to see that any one can raise against it a valid objection. It does not censure any party; it simply states a fact. While it says that “the late time at which it was deemed advisable to dissolve the last Assembly, and the Ministerial arrangements resulting from the General Election,” prevented His Excellency from summoning the House at an earlier period, it does not cast the least reflection upon the late Government. We charitably suppose that they had good reason for delaying the Election. But, as some eight or ten months of the most suitable season for the year for holding it, elapsed before the House was dissolved, a satisfactory explanation of the matter, from some of His Excellency’s late advisors, would, no doubt, be gratifying to hon. members, as well as to the people generally. As you are aware, Sir, the “ministerial arrangements” referred to in the clause, are those rendered necessary by the resignation of the late government and its principal officers, whose places had to be filled up to carry on the public business of the Colony. Those hon. members who accepted offices of emolument, of course, had to vacate their seats; and, though the writs for the Elections, in such cases, were made returnable as soon as possible, delay in calling the Legislature together was impossible. We do not wish to attach blame to the late party in power; we merely express our willingness, notwithstanding the lateness of the Session, to devote a sufficient time to mature such measures as the exigencies of the Colony and the public service may require. It, however, would afford me pleasure to hear from two hon. members present (Messrs. Duncan and Henderson), who held seats at the late Executive Board, an explanation of the reason why the General Election was so long delayed. It is surmised that the late Government deferred the dissolution of the Assembly until Confederation might be matured; but as those two hon. members are understood to be decidedly opposed to that measure, they could not have consented to the delay on any such ground.

Hon. Mr. McAULAY.—Mr. Chairman, I cannot but admire the moderation of the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat! At first he was not going to cast any reflection upon the late Government, but he concluded his speech by calling upon them to give an account of their actions. Conduct like this is unparliamentary. Never before, I believe, has such a thing occurred in any country, as an incoming Government attempting to call their predecessors to account on the floors of the Legislature. A new light has dawned upon the world since the advent of the present Government party to power, and I hope it will benefit from the faint illumination which that light affords. It is contrary to parliamentary rule for one House to refer to the proceedings of another. But the hon. member’s allusion to the acts of the late Government seems merely intended to cover the misdeeds of his own party. He complains of the lateness of the Session, and throws all the blame upon His Excellency’s former advisers. His excuse will not stand the test of investigation. The General Election was held on the 26th of February, and the House was not summoned to meet until the 18th of April. Why the delay? The pleading about ministerial arrangements will not satisfy the public. Were the Officers of the late Government asked to retain their places for a few month, until the business of the Session could be got over? The real fact of the case appears to be that the leaders of the party now in power were so anxious to obtain office, that, rather than forego the sweets of emolument for a few weeks, they were prepared to put the people to expense, and the country members to great inconvenience. I will not move any amendment to the paragraph under consideration; but I hope that the Hon. Attorney General will adhere to parliamentary rule more strictly in the future.

Mr. BRECKEN.—I regret that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not in his place: if he were, I have no doubt he would satisfy the Hon. Attorney General respecting the delay in holding the General Election, which seems to cause that hon. member so much uneasiness. I believe, however, that his surmise was pretty nearly correct; that the late Government deemed it advisable to delay the Election until the intentions of the Imperial Government, with respect to the position this Island would occupy in regard to Confederation should be made known. Though I am opposed to Confederation, I believe the policy of the late Administration, in waiting to ascertain the decision of the Home Government on that question, was a sound one. It was but right that the people of this Island should be made aware of what the Imperial Government purposed to do with them, before they were required to go to the polls. This is a small Colony; and, though we objected to enter the proposed Confederation, it was possible that the authorities at Home might resolve to include us in the Bill then about to be brought before Parliament. The people, I think, will not blame the late Government for delaying the Election until the public mind was relieved upon the point. It would have been unwise to put the country to the expense of a General Election, without knowing what would be our future fate. But, Mr. Chairman, if I recollect rightly, the late Government placed their resignations in His Excellency’s hands some ten or twelve days before their successors were appointed, therefore the very late period at which the Session was called, could not be altogether attributable to the time at which the Election was held. And, after the Government was formed, and they had placed their friends in office, there was apparently no occasion for delaying the opening of the Session until last week. They were strong—at least numerically so, whether really strong or not. They had nineteen to eleven of the Opposition—or eighteen to twelve—a question which I suppose the hon. member for Tryon alone can solve; consequently the absence of two or three members from their seats should not have delayed the public business. But, I suppose we must accept the explanation in the paragraph under consideration, that “ministerial arrangements,” or perhaps more properly, ministerial difficulties—prevented an earlier call of the House. We know, Sir, from the declaration of the hon. Leader of the Government himself, at the late nomination, that his present supporters in the Legislature are composed of all political parties; therefore it is easy to understand how difficulties may arise. The paragraph before the Committee is moderate; and, indeed, the whole Address is moderate; and, had it not been for the allusion made by the Hon. Attorney General to the course pursued by the late Government in reference to the General Election, I would not have troubled this hon. Committee so early in the debate.

[Page 7]

Hon. Mr. DAVIES.—The hon. member for Charlottetown has stated that the reason the late Administrators delayed the Election, was in order to ascertain what action the Home Government intended to take on Confederation. This is a very extraordinary excuse to offer. Did they suppose or desire that the Imperial Government would force as into Confederation? The British Parliament would not be so unjust as to sanction such an act. We are in as independent a position as any of the States in the neighboring Republic; and our independent rights cannot properly be taken from us. But the British Government never wished to coerce us into Confederation. Those who held up this idea, were the men who wished that this Island might be legislated into the Union without the people’s consent. The Home Government could not rightfully deprive us of our separate Government, unless we had violated the constitution of the Colony. And I believe this is what the late Government attempted to impress upon the Home authorities, when they sent for troops to quell, what they represented to be a disturbance among the tenantry, thereby bringing the Island into discredit. To state that the late Administration Colony would be included in it or not, is as much as to say, that they believed the Legislature of this Island to be a farce, and our constituents not a free people.

Mr. BRECKEN.—Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Belfast, that it was not at all probable that the Home Government would take away the Constitution of the Colony without our consent. But the Government did not know what instructions His Excellency might, almost at any moment, receive. He might have been instructed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to dissolve the House, and test the opinion of the country on the question of Confederation. Suppose that he had received such instructions a week or two after the Election was over, would not the country have thought that the Government of the day had been too hasty in making an appeal to the people? I am just as prepared as the hon. member to stand up for the rights of the Colony; but considering our insignificance, I cannot admit that we are so independent of the Mother Country, as he has asserted. The object of the late Government, he also stated, seemed to be to bring discredit, or a stigma upon the Colony. This was caused, hr says, by their sending for the troops. The Tenant Union disturbances, are no doubt looked upon by him, as a very trifling affair, He did not condescend to inform us whether he was a member of that organization or not; but I know, Sir, that when a procession of that body paraded the streets of Charlottetown, they halted opposite the hon. gentleman’s business establishment, and gave him an ovation. He appeared at the door before them, and received the honor with a countenance radiant with the smiles of patriotism. I am not going to detain this hon. committee at present to discuss the point whether the nature of the disturbances which arose, out of the great Tenant League agitation, were such as to justify the late Government in sending for troops. I will merely say that if the hon. member for Belfast sincerely believes that their action in the matter was intended, or calculated to bring the Colony into disgrace, he ought, now, since he is a member of the Government, to have introduced a paragraph into His Excellency’s speech to carry out the objects of this Tenant Association which he countenanced and supported. A little pepper in the Speech would have been an improvement. I was not at the hon. member’s elbow through his election campaign, but I have been informed that the League had not a little to do with his presence here. If, then, Sir, he owes his seat in this House to the influence of that organization, why has he not something in this Address on the subject, even supposing he could not procure a place for it in the speech from the Throne? I fear, Sir, that having ridden into this House on that political horse, he has turned him away, never more to be heard of, until the next Election day comes round. I can only compare his conduct to a man who has undertaken a long journey on foot, and finding himself fatigued, and almost despairing of reaching his destination he meets with a horse which he coaxes with a little provender, leaps on his back, rides to the end of his journey, and then turns him adrift. So is the hon. member with the Tenant organization; he gave it a few political oats, and encouraged it to help him along, but having served his purpose, he has now quietly forgotten its claims. He may declaim about the troops and the acts of the late Government, but now, after having become one of His Excellency’s sworn advisers, he will discover that he must pursue the same policy in maintaining law and order, as was adopted by the Conservative party. It is rumored that the British troops are to be withdrawn from the other Provinces after they are confederated. If so, those which are here will also be called away. Should the hon. member for Belfast, then ascertain that law and order can not be maintained in this Colony, except at the point of the bayonet, he, I think, will conclude that we are not so independent as he at present imagines.

Hon. Mr. DUNCAN.—The subject of the Tenant League having been brought forward by the hon. member for Belfast (Mr. Davis) one of the members of the Government, it is. Mr. Chairman, no hard for the Opposition to mention it. The conduct of my hon. colleague in regard to the Tenant association has been, I think, somewhat strange. In fact he has merely used that body as a means of getting into power, and even in his canvass before the late Election, he regulated his speeches in regard to the Land Question and the rights of the Tenantry very much by the character of the people whom he happened to be addressing. He should not, I think, have alluded to this question at all, and I wonder that he has done so. But, Sir, returning to the paragraph under discussion, why did not the present Government, if they desired to call the Legislature at an earlier period, wait a few weeks before appointing their principal officers from the members on the floor of the House? Could not some of these appointments have been postponed until the House had risen, and thereby no delay be occasioned? But the Address throughout follows the policy of the late Government—that policy which the present Government at the late Election found so much fault with, but which now they appear ready to carry out. I, for my part, Mr. Chairman, see nothing objectionable in this paragraph, but am surprised at my hon. colleague’s allusions to the Tenant League. It is plain that he has merely used that organization as a means of getting into the Government, and that he will now have no further use for the tenantry [Illegible] he again [Illegible] upon them at another Election.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS.—I wish, Mr. Chairman, to make a few remarks regarding the defence of the hon. member for Charlottetown, with respect to the action of the late Government in delaying the General Elections. The observations which have fallen from that gentleman would lead us to believe that had certain news come from England regarding Confederation, the House would never have been called. This is but a poor defence of the action of the Government, and is equal to saying that its members were willing to see their country and prove traitors to the trust reposed in them. And is not the party carrying out the same policy still? Have not the Opposition chosen the hon. and learned

[Page 8]

member for Georgetown, a red hot Unionist, as their leader, thus showing their leanings to the Confederation Scheme? With regard to what my hon. colleague (Mr. Duncan) has said of my connection with the Tenant League, I may tell him that I am not now in this House through the influence of that body, though many of its members voted for me. It is true that I at first supported the Tenants in their demands, but I had afterwards cause to disapprove of many of their acts. The hon. member’s rambling allusions to my canvass and election in Belfast have not very much weight. He clearly expected to carry all Belfast before him, but failed in the attempt.

Mr. BRECKEN.—In the explanation which I gave of the probable cause of the delay in issuing the Writs for the General Election, I merely stated that, in my opinion, that delay was occasioned by a desire on the part of the late Government to postpone the Elections until something more definite was known on the subject of Confederation; but I did not wish to convey the impression that they were waiting in order to sell their country. Even if disposed to take such action on Confederation, they would first have had to submit it to the Legislature; and I therefore do not see that they were in a position to act as traitors, even were they so inclined. Much, Mr. Chairman, has been said about the Opposition’s having chosen the hon. member for Georgetown, (Mr. Haviland) who is a Confederate, as their leader, but I cannot think it consistent in the hon. member for Belfast to condemn them for doing so when the party of which he is a member offered the highest honor in this House which they could confer upon the same Confederate gentleman, namely, the Speaker’s Chair. And has not the Government of which he is a member appointed a gentleman who is a strong Confederate to the most lucrative Election, and I am sorry that such is the case. The Queen’s Primer has always been a credit to the House and I would not have the slightest objection to seeing him now on the floor, for I have always respected him, strongly though he has denounced the policy of the Conservative party. I consider that the Liberal party—if such a party exists—acted rightly in appointing hon. members who made that appointment, now finding fault with the Opposition for selecting their ablest and most experienced member as Leader, even though he be a Confederate.

Hon. Mr. DAVIES.—The hon. member who has just spoken considers that I cannot, with any degree of consistency, approve of Mr. Whelan’s appointment as Queen’s Printer, and yet condemn the Opposition for choosing the hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. Haviland) as their Leader. It is well-known that Mr. Whelan had strong claims upon the Liberal party. He ran his election, was returned, and then applied for the Printership; but, before that office was given him, he renounced his former opinions in favor of Confederation, and promised to oppose the measure in the House, if again elected. It appears, however, that, on his returning to his constituents, they were not satisfied with his promise, and rejected him; and, I am proud, as a politician, they did so, though I myself believe that, had Mr. Whelan been again returned, he would have opposed Confederation. But the case is different in regard to Mr. Haviland. The Opposition have chosen him unpledged, and he will still support Confederation.

Mr. BRECKEN.—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Whelan is not present. I have always had too high an opinion of that gentleman to think that he would sell himself and his opinions for an office, and, if he were now in the House, he would not, I think, thank the hon. member who has just sat down, for the character which he has given him, that of a political hireling. I have never seen his abandonment of his opinions, and I do not think such was ever made. The hon. member thinks there is a vast difference between the appointment of Mr. Wheland and that of Mr. Haviland. If he objects to the Opposition being led by the latter gentleman, why was he so anxious to place him in the Speaker’s Chair? If he is bent upon betraying the interests of his native country, was that the reward to give him,—make him first Commoner of the land? I believe Mr. Wheland is as much a Confederate as ever, and he was placed in office by the present composite Government, for that is its character. There are in it fragments of the old Liberal party, some of the Tenant League element I believe, and some Conservatives. The position of the present hon. Leader of the Opposition is before the country. He is, we know, a staunch Confederate; and, since his avowal of his opinions on this matter, he has been returned by his constituents. Regarding the delay in the Elections, Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I do not think that the Conservative party delayed them, in order to sell the people, or that they had the power or inclination to do so. Surely the House of Assembly that passed the “No terms Resolution” would not be willing to sell the country. There was, I think, as much integrity in the late House, as in the present one; and I consider it right that the Elections were delayed, in order that the people might be better informed upon the subject of Confederation, and the wishes of the Imperial Government.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—I did not, Mr. Chairman, think that the Tenant League and Confederation would be brought up for discussion, when I moved the clause now under consideration. Nothing of the sort was mentioned in the clause; and, in moving it, I merely stated that no blame was cast upon the late Government, as they were probably able to give good reasons for their acts. It was reported that the late Government desired to sacrifice the Island on the altar of Confederation, and therefore delayed the dissolution of the Assembly; but, as a proof that this could not be the case, I alluded to the fact that the hon. members opposite, for Belfast and Murray Harbor, both strong anti-Confederates, were in the Executive up to and after the time at which the dissolution would ordinarily have taken place. But, if the dissolution was delayed to enable the people to obtain more information on Confederation, that they might thereby form a more correct opinion on the subject, I am willing to concede the wisdom of the delay. Regarding the case of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and that of the present Queen’s Printer, I consider that, if any person thinks proper to cover his views on a subject, and to say that he will not press them upon the attention of the House, I am perfectly at liberty to accept him as an officer, either of the Government or of this House. I look upon the hon. member for Georgetown as pledged not to support Confederation, until he shall again appeal to his constituents on the subject. It was not at all unparliamentary for the Government to offer him the Speaker’s chair. In the British Parliament, the Speaker is chosen simply with regard to his merits, leaving his political opinions out of the question; and why could not we do the same? The hon. member for Charlottetown also stated that he believed that the dissolution of the late House was probably delayed, in order to afford time to receive despatches from the Home Government on the subject of Confederation. It was probably of advantage to the people, that, at the time the Elections took place, the question, in all its bearings, and all its fulness, should be before them, giving them an opportunity of forming their own opinions on the matter, and taking these opinions as a guide for their actions; and I consider that no

[Page 9]

compulsion that could be brought to bear, would prevent them doing so. The hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. McAulay) has accused me of acting in an unparliamentary manner. That gentleman occupied the Speaker’s Chair for some time, in the late House, and, of course, his statements will carry great weight. It sounded very well for him to say that I had departed from Parliamentary practice; but I am unable to see in what respect I did so. If asking for an explanation, to enlighten this hon. Committee, is unparliamentary, I must, I confess, plead guilty. Much has been said about Departmental and Responsible Government. I lately read, in a Halifax newspaper, an article on this subject, which defined Responsible Government to be a government according to the well-understood wishes of the people, as expressed through a majority of their Representatives. We, then, have Responsible Government in its pure form, so long as we have a majority of the Representatives carrying out their wishes. The hon. member for the City also stated that there was nothing in His Excellency’s Speech,—that, in the Speech the Government merely followed the policy of the late Administration. What an example the Tories have set, certainly! They laid aside the Land Purchase Bill, which was a Liberal measure, and tried other measures for the purchase of the Lands; but, these failing, they finally returned to the original Bill. Does the hon. member think that, because the Conservatives adopted the policy of the Liberals, that that party, in its return to power, is to throw aside that policy, and adopt a new one? We do not, Sir, follow the Conservative party, but merely support a measure brought forward by ourselves,—a measure the best adapted to settle the Land Question, and which has done so to a very great extent. But, Sir, the present Government have been blamed, by some hon. members of the Opposition, for not having waited until the House had risen, before appointing its officers from that body. It was impossible for the Government to work until its principal officers, such as the Colonial Secretary, were appointed; and, I think that my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, would have been rather surprised, had the Government asked him to remain in office after the defeat of his party. I trust that the hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. McAulay) will see fit to withdraw the charge of being unparliamentary, which he has brought against me.

Hon. Mr. McAULAY.—If the hon. member expects me to retract, his hopes, Mr. Chairman, will end in disappointment. When I charged him with being unparliamentary, I did not speak unadvisedly; and there are now, or were lately, before him, authorities to prove the correctness of what I said. If he is not too indolent to peruse these authorities, he will find that references in censure are not allowed in the Imperial Parliament.

Hon. Mr. HAVILAND.—If I had been in my place at the commencement of this debate much discussion might have been saved. The debate, Mr. Chairman, should have been confined to the paragraph no before you, instead of which, we have subjects brought up and discussed which do not even appear in the Address. The hon. member for Charlottetown was right in saying that Confederation was the cause of the delay in holding the late General Election. Her Majesty’s Representative, together with his advisers, considered that it was for the interest of the Island to defer the Election as late as possible, that all the information which could be received might be laid before the people at the polls, that they might know the result of the Conference in London, and the principles of the Confederation Bill before the Imperial Parliament. We expected some despatch in answer to the Address sent from this House last year which would contain more than the usual announcement that Her Majesty had received it graciously. On the day of nomination such a despatch was received and immediately published that the people might read it; and had the Election taken place in the autumn the country would have been in ignorance of many of the facts concerning Confederation. Very probably the reason why some hon. members object to the late Government’s having delayed the Election, is that they were then anxiously waiting to get into the House, and were therefore impatient of any delay. Some insinuation has been thrown out that the late Government were waiting to sell the country. I can tell hon. members,—and my word will, I think, have some weight, for I am pretty well known,—that I was returned by my constituents pledged not to commit the Island to any scheme of Confederation, without first appealing to the people, and I would as soon cut off my hand as allow it to be done. I only hope that hon. members opposite will be as well able to clear their skirts when they go out to power as I am. I never, Mr. Chairman, heard on the floor of this House such an extraordinary admission as that made by the hon. member for Belfast, (Mr. Davies) regarding the Queen’s Printer’s appointment. He actually seemed to me to sing a pean of joy over that gentleman’s defeat. If the hon. member was unwilling to see him in office, he should, I think, have resigned his position as a member of the Executive. By the principles of Responsible Government every member of that body is individually responsible for every appointment, and it is the duty of each of them to defend that appointment when made.

Hon. Mr. DAVIES.—I think I may be allowed to explain my statement in regard to Mr. Whelan’s appointment as Queen’s Printer. I would have been opposed to his appointment, had I not been aware that, before his first Election, he publicly renounced his opinions on Confederation. When I said that I was glad that the people had now rejected him, I merely meant that I was glad they had done so, if they did not consider him sincere in the pledges which he had given.

Hon. Mr. DUNCAN.—I omitted, Mr. Chairman, to remind my hon. colleague, who so strongly condemned the action of the late Government in sending for the troops, that the Opposition of last Session, with the exception of two hon. members, approved of the step taken by the Conservative Administration in that matter.

Hon. Mr. HENDERSON.—During the Debate, reference has been made to me personally, as a member of the late Government, and an insinuation has been made against that Government, for which I consider it my duty to demand something more than an assertion. The hon. member for Belfast (Mr. Davies) has stated that the late Government had called the soldiers into the Island, with the intention of forcing the Island into Confederation. Can he produce any proof—anything like proof—for that statement? Does he mean to say that his Honor the Chief Justice, who was at that time Administrator of the Government, would consent to anything like that? I repudiate the statement, and hand it back to the gentleman for proof. I admit that, perhaps preliminary steps, on the part of the civil power, were not used in time, and I will give you no opinion now, contrary to the opinions which I held when in the Government. I do not wish to occupy the time of this hon. Committee: but, when the integrity of the late Government is called in question, I consider it my duty to defend them. I say, then, that the hon. member for Belfast (Mr. Davies) has given no proof—except his bare assertion—that such was the motive of the late Government, in calling the Troops. I regret that this subject has been brought forward. I would be one of the last to mention it. Some gentlemen have referred to the fact that my hon. and learned

[Page 10]

friends, the member for Georgetown, has been chosen as Leader by the Opposition. We were in this act, Sir, as consistent as were the Government in offering him the Speaker’s chair. The fact of their having done this only proves that we have made a wise choice. I myself heard that gentleman, when addressing his constituents in Georgetown, say, if ever that crisis came, when his vote could put this Island into Confederation without the consent of the people, God forbit that he should give it. Take this fact in connection with the well-known character of the hon. member for Georgetown, and we have, I think, as good a guarantee for his conduct as can be required.

Hon. Mr. HOWLAN.—I did not, Mr. Chairman, indent to speak at this stage of the proceedings; but, certainly, I did not expect that any hon. gentleman would have made such statements as the hon. member for Belfast (Mr. Duncan) has done. He said that all the Opposition of last year were in favor of bringing the troops here, except two—the hon. member for New Glasgow, and the hon. member for Tryon. All the members of the minority of last year, with the exception of two, were not in favor of the action of the late Government in that matter; and, therefore, Sir, his statement is incorrect. There was a Resolution brought in by the Government, to which the hon. member for Tryon moved an amendment, and eight members voted for it—which amendment I will now read:—

“That the House of Assembly regret the disturbances and troubles which occurred in this Colony in the past year, but the House, at the same time, are of opinion that the alleged open and systematic defiance of the law might have been set aside by a further recourse to the aid of the civil power at the disposal of the local authorities, before calling in the aid of Her Majesty’s troops.”

Now, Sir, I find that eight voted for this amendment, and this is an important fact. I did not intend to go into this question. I am sorry, and I think every hon. member in this House is sorry, that the Hon. Mr. Whelan has not been returned,—sorry that he was unfortunate. There have been other matters brought up, which, I think, we had better now pass by, as we shall have ample opportunity, hereafter, to speak to them. I will only say that I was surprised at the explanation given by the hon. member, with respect to the delay in holding the Election.

Hon. Mr. HAVILAND.—Does the hon. member refer to me?

Hon. Mr. HOWLAN.—I referred to the hon. member for Belfast (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. HOWAT.—Mr. Chairman, I was the one who moved the resolution in the House last year which has just been read by the hon. member. I believe that law and order should be maintained; and I believe that all classes are liable to become excited at times; but I do think that the Government should have used the means at their disposal before they brought the troops here. Had they done so, they would have had no occasion for the troops to put down any disturbance. But now that they are here, I am glad to see them. It is admitted by all that this Session was called too late, and both sides of the House seem to try to get clear of the blame. Now, is there cause for complaint? I, for one, believe that there is blame, and I wish that blame to rest upon those on whom it should. If the present Government, as explained by the Hon. the Atty. Gen., had no more time than was required by law for calling the Legislature, then the blame must rest with the late Government. I am at a loss to understand the hon. member for Charlottetown (Mr. Brecken) when he gave as a reason that they were waiting for fuller information on Confederation. Now, Sir, if he was sincere last year in the no terms resolution, there was no necessity to wait for any further information on the subject of Confederation; and the Election should have been held at the proper time, and the country not put to the inconvenience of calling the Legislature so late.

Mr. BRECKEN.—In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, I suggested what I thought probably was the reason why the late Election did not take place at an earlier date, that the Government were waiting the result of the deliberations of the delegates of the other Provinces, in London, on the subject of Confederation. If such was their reason, it appears to me a sufficient one; for who could tell to what extent our position might have been effected by the policy of the Imperial Government? Some persons predicted that we would be coerced into union; others, that certain terms would be offered for the acceptance or rejection of the people of this Colony, and with that object a dissolution would have to take place. The hon. member for Belfast (Mr. Davies) will surely admit that it was of consequence that all doubts in this important matter should be removed before the Electors were called upon to choose their representatives. The hon. member charges me, as one of the supporters of the celebrated no terms resolution, with inconsistency in excusing this delay; but Sir, the hon. member knows very well that, although I voted for these resolutions, I did not agree with the wording of them; and if he refers to the report of my speech on that occasion, he will find that I stated that they went too far, that to say that no terms of union that would prove advantageous to our interests and the well-being of the people could be offered was going too far. My reasons for voting for these resolutions were, that I believed that no other terms were in store for us other than those offered by the Quebec Scheme—terms which I believed then, and still do, were neither just nor liberal to the Island; and that in a union on such terms, our material interests would be most seriously depressed. That looking at what was then taking place in the neighboring Province of Nova Scotia, the very great dissatisfaction that appeared to exist there, and the protests that were being made against the policy of the Government going into Confederation without first appealing to the people, I considered it would have been dangerous for us to admit the principle in the abstract, until there was a prospect of getting fair terms, such as the people of this Colony would be prepared to accept. If the hon. member (Mr. Davies) will take the trouble to refer to my speech, when these resolutions were under discussion last Session, he will find that I have not changed my opinions. That I then said that terms might be offered which it would be to our interest to accept. Not that I think it any discredit to a man to change his opinions, on political as well as other subjects. The man who never changes his opinion, never corrects his errors. Since last Session Confederation has undergone a material change. The union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick has been accomplished; besides the terms of the compact have also been materially changed. With us, Sir, I think it is only a question of time. I have never thought that we can stand alone and keep out of the union. If I thought we could without imperilling our various interests, I would say in the words of Shakspeare, “better

[Page 11]

bear those ills we have than fly to others we know not of.” Our position now is such that it becomes the duty of every public man to look the question fairly in the face, not in a party spirit with the object of making political stock out of it. It is time we made up our minds on this great question, as to the most beneficial course to be pursued, and having done so to stand or fall by those opinions.

Hon. Mr. DAVIES.—I look at members who have pledged themselves.

Mr. BRECKEN.—The hon. member need not alarm himself about my inconsistency. I am not going to play with the question. I have pledged myself in common, I believe, with every hon. member of this House, not to commit the country to Confederation until the question is first submitted to the people at the pulls. This pledge was most distinctly given, and I intend to keep it strictly.

Hon. Mr. DAVIES.—I understood the hon. member for Charlottetown.

Mr. BRECKEN.—I consider myself bound by a pledge to hand back to my constituents the power they entrusted me with undiminished. I do not feel myself precluded from discussing the question. For, if the present Government were to open negotiations with the Confederate Colonies, for the purpose of joining the Union—a course that would not very much surprise me—and obtain an offer on favorable terms, I should consider myself bound to vote against closing with that offer, and vote for referring the question to the people. I am surprised at the coolness of the hon. member, twitting me with inconsistency on the subject of Confederation. I ask him, what candidate did he support at the recent Election for Charlottetown,—my hon. colleague, a prominent supporter of Confederation, one of the celebrated “ninety-four.” If, Sir, the hon. member and his party, well-knowing my colleague’s views on that question, supported, and, with the assistance of some Confederates in the city, returned him to this House; but—strange and inconsistent—having placed him in that responsible position, they are afraid, I understand, to trust him as a member of the Executive Council, and resolutely refuse to appoint him to that position, although he has as resolutely insisted on his right to be there. Looking at the fact that he is one of the representatives of the capital of the Colony, and the only one who is in harmony with the Government, if there is anything of that element amongst them, which I much doubt, and considering that his constituents are the most wealthy, and certainly as intelligent as any in the Island, and that the greater portion of the mercantile, mechanical, and many other of our important interests are centred in the Town and Royalty, I do think my colleague, and those who sent him here, have a right to see him at the Executive Council Board. I understand the Government distrusts him on account of his Confederate opinions. It cannot be that his qualifications and position, in other respects, do not justify the appointment. Strange inconsistency, voting for a gentleman, returning him to this House, and still afraid to trust him as a member of the Government. But, Sir, for another piece of inconsistency on the party of the hon. member (Mr. Davies) and his party. How does he defend the appointment to the office of Queen’s Printer of a gentleman, one of the most ardent and talented (and on that account the most dangerous) advocates of Confederation. The hon. member designates Confederates as traitors. Is this his mode of punishing treachery by appointing the offender to the most lucrative office in the gift of the Government?

Hon. Mr. KELLY.—Mr. Davies was not appointed to the Executive until after Mr. Whelan was appointed Queen’s Printer.

Mr. BRECKEN.—So much the worse for him, if such was the fact, for, by accepting a seat in the Government, he endorsed and approved of the Act; but the fact is Mr. Davies was a member of the Government at the time the appointment was made. The hon. member (Mr. Davies) jeers us for having a red-hot Unionist as Leader of the Opposition. It is within the knowledge of this hon. House, that that hon. member and the Government proposed to punish the Leader of the Opposition for his red-hot Confederate ideas, by making him first Commoner of the land, placing him in the Speaker’s Chair. Strange method this, of marking the people’s and the hon. member’s disapprobation of the Leader of the Opposition’s unsound and traitorous opinions on a question so vitally affecting our interests. The fact is, the Government is a mass of inconsistency; there are scarcely two of them who profess the same principles. Their Leader, who has not at present a seat in this House, always contended, (and no later than a few days ago, on the hustings in Charlottetown,) that the departmental system of Responsible Government was the only true system. How often have we, on this side of the House, been denunciated as traitors for departing from it, by excluding office-holders from the Legislature. Now, we find this composite Government following the course laid down by the Conservatives, without having the honesty or candor to confess that they have seen the error of their way, or to assign reasons for changing their minds. No, Sir; rather than admit that it was honorable for their opponents to do anything right, they prefer pursuing a course which they have denounced as deceptive. They tell us that all political parties must make compromises. To a certain extent this is true,—but in matters of detail, there is a point at which compromises must stop. There are certain vital principles, which admit of no compromise, unless they wish to be, as this Government are, compromised from head to foot, without any distinctive principle, composed of a remnant of the old Liberal party, an infusion of Tenant Leaguers, and a few calling themselves moderate Conservatives. Look at some of their recent and most important appointments. What principle of Responsible Government was respected in the appointment of the Colonial Treasurer—a gentleman who, a few weeks ago, was rejected, at the Legislative Council Election, by an overwhelming majority; and, as to the appointment to the head of the Customs Department, I cannot say what known rule of the Constitution has been invaded, as the framers of that system of government, wide and comprehensive as they made it, never contemplated such a case of unblushing political jobbery occurring; this was reserved for the ingenuity of Prince Edward Island Liberals. And bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the Government, by making this appointment, endorses its propriety collectively and individually, otherwise

[Page 12]

they would insist on the Controller of Customs obtaining the approval of his constituents. I can picture to myself that gentleman, when on the hustings, dilating on the grievances and wrongs perpetuated by those ruthless and grinding Tories, and assuring the people that, if they would only return him to Parliament, he would put his shoulder to the wheel, and case them of all their burdens and wrongs. They do so. He, on his part, accepts a lucrative office, makes his bow to his oppressed constituency, and takes final leave of them and their grievances. I have always looked upon Responsible Government as a very elastic thing; it may be compared to an Indian rubber bag, capable of being squeezed into a variety of shapes and forms; and, provided you keep it inflated with the breath of the well-understood wishes of the people for the time, all well; but the present composite Government seem disposed to squeeze that very breath out of it, and hold it up to the people as an empty and meaningless thing. So much, Sir, for the consistency of the hon. member for Belfast and his new-found friends.

Hon. Mr. LAIRD.—Mr. Chairman; being a young member, I did not wish to be too hasty in rising to address his hon. Committee. But I cannot any longer retain my seat, when I hear such a reason given for delaying the General Election. In fact, it is no reason at all. Sir, in my boyish days I was led to believe that law and lawyers were nearly synomous terms for roguery and deception; but I have lived that opinion down. Still, when I hear the hon. and learned member for Charlottetown advancing such reasons as he has done to-night, I am almost forced to the conclusion that my early impressions were correct. Now, if he was honest in voting for the “no terms” resolutions, it ought to be a matter of indifference to him how early in the summer the elections were held. If consistency had characterized the actions of the late Government, delay in the case was unnecessary. The attempt to justify putting off the Elections, on account of the general tenor of the resolutions on Confederation passed last Session, is, I think, without force, when we consider that the “no terms” portion of them is their most prominent feature,—so much so, that they receive their designation from it, and will continue to do so, while the Journals of this House remain in existence. The hon. member for Charlottetown has also twitted the members of the Government about the “composite” material of which it is formed. Be that as it may, I think their opinions are more in harmony with each other, and their actions characterized by greater unanimity, than were those of the late Government. One member of that “happy family”—the hon. member for Murray Harbor (Mr. Henderson)—was kicked (pardon the expression) out of that honorable body. And the operation appears to have had a beneficial effect upon him, judging from his present conduct, following, as he does, closely to, and firmly supporting, the present hon. Leader of the Opposition, who remained a member of the late Government after his (Mr. Henderson’s) gentle dismissal.

Mr. BRECKEN.—To say that no terms could be offered that would induce us to enter into Confederation, was certainly going too far. The hon. member from Bedeque insinuates that I was prepared to enter into Confederation, if better terms were offered. This is an error. I did not say so, or deviate from my pledge to return the matter to the hustings.

Hon. Mr. HENDERSON.—Mr. Chairman; the hon. member, who has just sat down (Mr. Laird), in his reply to the hon. and learned member on my right (Mr. Breckon) has alluded to me; but, I would remind him that it is quite unnecessary to attack me over the shoulders of another, for, I believe, I can stand upon my own legs. He affirms that I was kicked out of the late Government; but I can assure him that I was neither kicked nor pushed out of the Government, as the correspondence on the subject, published several months ago, has sufficiently proved; and, if the question were put to the vote of the intelligent people of the Island, I venture to say that they would pronounce my conduct as honorable as that of any member in this House. The illustration made use of by the hon. member, I did not distinctly hear, but its drift I can easily understand; and believe that, if it may be taken as a true index to his forthcoming speeches, he may expect laurels, not a few, before the end of the Session. He has only bound on the state harness; let him not think too hastily that he would work his way through a difficulty like the one alluded to, with more credit than I have done. The hon. member (Mr. Davies) is muttering on his seat, while I am speaking; but, I must tell tat hon. member that it would be much more gentlemanly for him to stand up and reply to me himself, if able to do so, than to sit prompting another for that purpose.

Mr. McLENNAN.—This discursive debate, Mr. Chairman, is a perfect waste of time. I am one of those who approve of the action of the late Government in reference to the General Election. Hon. members have brought into this discussion matters not before this hon. Committee. In the paragraph under consideration, there is not one word that has any reference to Confederation. It is a waste of time to be referring now to many of the subjects which have been dragged into this debate. There will be ample opportunity to do so when these questions come up, in proper form, before the House.

Mr. PROWSE.—Mr. Chairman; I feel it to be my duty to tell the hon. member for Belfast (Mr. Davies) that, when he undertakes to charge this side of the House as being the Confederate side, he is stating what is incorrect. There are, Sir, on this side of the House, men as strongly anti-Confederate as can be be found anywhere. Why, Sir, the conduct of the majority, with respect to the elections for the City of Charlottetown, cannot be defended. The hon. gentleman charges us with changing our opinions on Confederation, because we have a Confederate for our Leader; and yet he and his party were willing and anxious to put that same gentleman into the Speaker’s Chair. I am sure, if a Confederate was placed in that honorable position by this House, it would be regarded by the public as a tendency towards Confederation, much more than the act of the Opposition, in choosing him to be their Leader. I need not say one word with respect to the hon. member giving his own vote for a strong Confederate, after what has been said by others on that act of his. The Government side of this House is made up of old Liberals, Tenant-Leaguers, Confederates, and Conservatives; and on this side, there are men who are strongly opposed to Confederation. With respect to the question, why the late Government did not cause the Elections to take place earlier, I may say that, if they felt that any danger was to come out of hasty steps, they were doing a good service in acting as they did. And, Sir, I believe, there was a time when a Legislature, only nine months old, was dissolved, and anew Election held. Had the dissolution of the late Assembly taken place at the usual time, there was reason to apprehend that the same would have again occurred. If that was the reason, I consider it a perfectly satisfactory one, for it probably saved the country the expense of a second

[Page 13]

Election. We know that the Home Authorities were more anxious that this Colony should go into Confederation, than they were, some time ago, that we should have six additional members in this House; therefore, it was quite probable that they might have instructed His Excellency to dissolve the Assembly, and test the question of Confederation at the polls.

Hon. Mr. DAVIES.—I wish to say a word in reply to the hon. member for Charlottetown (Mr. Brecken). The hon. member said that we were carrying on the Government on principles different from those formerly adopted by the Liberal party.

Mr. PROWSE.—As defined by yourselves.

Hon. Mr. DAVIES.—Responsible Government has been so ably defined by my hon. friend, the Attorney General, it is quite unnecessary for me to go further into the matter, as I endorse his opinions on that subject. Responsible Government is supposed to be the well-understood wishes of the people, as expressed through their Representatives. This side of the House is not now composed of the old Liberal party. There is a good deal of new blood infused into it. There are not so many of the old party on the floor of this House as formerly, but there are gentlemen on this side of the House who are prepared to serve their country faithfully. The hon. member for Charlottetown has said that the Hon. the Colonial Secretary is not here. I am happy to inform that hon. member that he soon will.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION.—The Hon. Attorney General has favored us with a definition of Responsible Government, as given from a Nova Scotian stand-point of view. I, however, am in favor of the home-manufactured article. In 1859, the Liberals were defeated at the polls, and the Conservatives came into power. Previous to that time there were only twenty four members in this House, a large proportion of whom were officeholder. Some questions arose which showed that the principle of having six or seven officeholders on the floors of this House gave the government of the day an undue influence, and the people declared in favor of excluding all officials from the Legislature. When the Conservatives came into power, they carried out their pledges by forming a Government, without any of its officers having seats in either branch of the Legislature; and for so doing they were told that they had mutilated Responsible Government—that they had crushed out its life’s blood. During the first Session which they were in power, a question of importance—the nature of which I do not now remember—came before the House, and an hon. gentleman—who was then a member of this branch of the Legislature, but who is now, like Mahomet’s coffin with respect to heaven or earth, neither in nor out of this House—expressed his views on this point in very strong terms. Then we heard quite a different definition of Responsible Government from that which we have received to-day. Under the first Administration formed by that hon. gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, Treasurer, Commissioner of Public Lands, Collector of Customs, and others, down to the Registrar of Deeds, were members of the Legislature; and because these officers were excluded by the Conservatives from holding seats either in this House or in the Legislative Council, I find by the Parliamentary Reporter of 1859, that he expressed himself as follows:

Hon. Mr. COLES.—Under the present mongrel system of Government, every member of it is as much bound to support it, as was any head of a department under the previous system, so that the argument about the greater freedom from improper influences fall to the ground. There should be three or four heads of departments in the House, and I regret that the leader of the Government has not accepted the office to which he was so fully entitled; and I believe, that sooner than have allowed him to retire as a representative, had he taken office, a majority of his friends would have returned him here as an official. I should like to see every member of the Executive holding office, and I would rather see their number reduced to five, with offices, than as at present. This Government is a disgrace to the Colony, and a laughing stock to our neighbors. I say not this in reference to the individuals composing it, but to the principle on which it is constituted. The people will not remain long satisfied with the system of dispensing the patronage among the relatives of members of the Executive. Such has not been the course pursued in the other Colonies; and in Nova Scotia, Mr. Johnston, to whom the hon. member has referred, did not adopt it when he succeeded to power, but carried out the constitutional system, which is as near an approximation to the British as the difference between Imperial and and Colonial institutions will admit. At present, a person coming from the country, having business with the Government, may be unable to see members of the Council; while, until recently, if the Governor was in his office, a Council could be formed at once from the officers in the building; but now the Governor cannot hold confidential communication with his principal officers.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with a party in power, under the leadership of the same hon. gentleman who enunciated these views in 1859, we look around this House in vain to see either the Colonial Treasurer, the Commissioner of Public Lands, the Collector of Customs, or the Registrar of Deeds. A change, certainly, has come over the spirit of their dream. In this case, verily the men of yesterday are not the men of to-day.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—It requires a good deal of political experience to arrive at correct conclusions. We have had sixteen years’ experience of Responsible Government, and have been endeavoring to work it out according to the well-understood wishes of the people, as expressed through their Representatives in this House; and, Sir, the events of the past teach us that we must look for change of views with politicians, as with other men. What did we see in England last year? and what do we see this year? Look at Mr. Gladstone, last year, and his opponents. He was driven from office, not, Sir, because the Conservatives feared his Bill would increase the constituencies too much, for now they themselves have brought in a Bill making yet larger increase. I am not, however, going to say that Mr. D’Israeli and Lord Derby are doing what is wrong. They are merely showing to the expressed will of the people. So we see Mr. D’Israeli openly and zealously advocating measures to which he was formerly opposed, and advocating them, too, in his place in Parliament. Sir Robert Peel, also, carried the Repeal of the Corn Laws, although he, at one time, was opposed to that measure.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION.—He was converted; you are not.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—I will ask the hon. member for Charlottetown if he was not a member of the Political Alliance. If the hon. member will say he was not, then I will bow to his statement.

Mr. BRECKEN.—I was.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—There that Association advocated vote by ballot.

Mr. BRECKEN.—I did not say that I would support the ballot, although I was a member of the Alliance.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The only question I ask is, was the hon. member connected with the Political Alliance? He says that he was, and it is no use for him now to say that his sentiments were, on any point, opposed to the charter of the association. We cannot accept of any personal declarations of differences of opinion in another way. If a person belongs to an association, and makes use of it, I say it is just to state that he assents to, and is responsible for, the principles

[Page 14]

of that society; and, if my reading was correct, the Political Alliance was in favor of vote by ballot in 1858. But, what have the Conservatives since done to carry out this measure? It has been allowed to remain out of sight. We may assume that they, too, have changed their views, at least on this point. I consider, Mr. Chairman, that a party which brings forward any measure, departs from its principles, if it does not carry that measure out. I have, as I have said, always been opposed to vote by ballot, because I think that an Englishman should not be ashamed to record his vote openly. When the Conservatives came into power in 18[Illegible], we were to have total exclusion of officeholders from the floor of the House. This was then their great policy, and this policy they departed from in 1863. Can they tell us, then, that we are not carrying out Responsible Government, because we depart from some of the principles which guided us when that form of Government was introduced here? If this be the case, they themselves did not carry out the principles of Responsible Government, when they changed their policy, in regard to the officeholder.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION.—The people saw the error of their ways.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Yes; the people saw the error of their ways, and the Government and the Representatives of the people saw the error of their ways. But it was still a departure from their principles, though they may say it was only a different way of working those principles out. This is very well—very good; and I am sure that, although the then Opposition congratulated the Conservatives on having turned from the error of their ways, they never upbraided them for not bringing a regiment of officers into the House. But, Mr. Chairman, there was no desire, on the part of the present Government, to delay unnecessarily the summoning of the Legislature. As soon as possible after the late Administration was broken up, the present Leader formed his Government; and I believe that, rather than leave the country in confusion, had the Leader of the Opposition been able to form a government, our Leader would not have interfered with him. If the members on this side of the House had been grasping after offices, it would have been impossible to call the Assembly even now, and the Revenue Bill might have been lost, had we thus adhered to the former policy of the Liberal party,—for with more than two or three members out of the House, the Government would have been placed at the tender mercies of the Opposition; and, in that position, as you may imagine, we were not inclined to be placed. The gentlemen on that side of the House may be very pleasant and agreeable; but we cannot trust them, when they are able to obtain an adverse vote. Let the Opposition, then, not cry out too soon. Why are they in such a hurry to pounce down on us, driven, as it were, into the position which we hold? They would, Mr. Chairman, show far more of the true patriotic spirit, if they refrained from doing so for a time, or, at least, until the Government has had an opportunity to develope its policy.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION.—I am, indeed, very much obliged to the Hon. Attorney General, for his able, lengthy, and statesmanlike lecture upon political morality. I was not present when this discussion commenced; but I understand it was begun by members on his own side of the House. The hon. member for Belfast opened it with that speech of his, which included the Tenant League and the calling in of the Troops. Then the Hon. Attorney General gave us a definition of Responsible Government; and now he has gone into the Franchise, vote by ballot, and Lord Derby’s policy.

Mr. BRECKEN.—I wish, Mr. Chairman, to say a few words upon the ingenious remarks of the Hon. Attorney General concerning the Political Alliance. I can say only this: The Political Alliance was an organization of the Conservative party. The principle of vote by ballot was not, I believe, part of the Constitution of the Alliance. Though incorporated in the draft constitution, it never formed part of the policy of its members or of the Conservative party, and was never brought forward by that party, either at the hustings, or on the floor of the House. I find no fault with the Hon. Attorney General for having changed his opinions. The Conservatives saw their mistake in the total exclusion of officeholders from the floor of the House, and they acknowledged it. If the present Government see that they were wrong in carrying out Departmental Government, why do they not frankly avow it? I believe that they are pursuing a wise course; but let them say that they have found themselves in the wrong,—not that the necessities of the times have compelled them to act as they have done, and compromise their principles. No, Sir; nothing would justify that—not even the loss of the Revenue Bill.

Hon. Mr. HOWLAN.—We have, Mr. Chairman, heard much in this discussion about the consistency of party. We would almost be led to believe that those hon. members could be accused of no inconsistency. But what, Mr. Chairman, did we see in 1859? Why Sir, during that year, and until 1863, the actual Attorney General of the Island had a seat in the House, while the gentleman who nominally held that office did not receive the salary belonging to it. This was the belief throughout the Island at the time. The party were afraid to send the gentleman who really discharged the duties of Attorney General back to his constituents, and hence this anomaly. We are, however, taking a straightforward course; we are satisfied with three members on the floor. Much has been said, Mr. Chairman, regarding the Queen’s Printer’s rejection by his constituents, but the hon. member who last spoke, must remember that he very nearly shared the same fate. I content, Sir, that it is not right or just to introduce that gentleman’s name here since his defeat. This matter should be left in abeyance, for his case may yet be that of other hon. members. But, Sir, the present Government has been styled a “composite” party, by the Opposition. Why, Sir, the character of the Conservative Government for the last eight years, has been composite. During that time they have had three Leaders, while the present Leader (Mr. Coles) is the only one the Liberal party ever had. The members who form the present Government, have come from the east, the west, the north and the south, and thus far, Mr. Chairman, it is composite, but not so on real principles. It was the mismanagement of the Land Question by the late Administration, which gave the present Government the majority in this House. It was a Colonial disgrace to call in the Troops, and I am glad to hear it admitted, that the civil power was not sufficiently exercised before doing so. That the conduct of the Executive in this matter did not meet with the approval of the country, is shown by the fact that a gentleman, who was then a member of that body, has been returned by his constituents to the bosom of his family.

Mr. BRECKEN.—With all deference to the hon. member who has just spoken, I will tell him, Mr. Chairman, that he must, in his statements before this hon. committee, confine himself to facts. He has stated that I have introduced and made free use of the name of a gentleman not now in the House. He must remember, Sir, that that gentleman’s rejection was brought up in discussion by hon. members on his

[Page 15]

own side of the House, not on ours. He has also alluded to my election, but with reference to this, I can tell him, that the influence which gives me a seat in this House, is a true British political one. I have run two elections, and I owe my return to the respected constituency which I represent; and I believe that though not more than fifty votes ahead of my opponent, I have the confidence of my constituency. But, Sir, the hon. member has also said that in 1859, I was appointed Attorney General nominally. This, Sir, is not true. I have never asked for an office of any description for myself or any one connected with me,—I never asked for the Attorney Generalship, and when appointed, I was astonished, for I always considered myself too young a man to be appointed to any important office, or to a seat in the Government. But, Sir, the duties of that office I discharged, and the whole of them, and in giving it to me Mr. Palmer’s name was never mentioned. For two years I enjoyed the whole salary of my office, and had nothing whatever to do with that gentleman in performing its duties, receiving no more assistance from him than one lawyer usually does from another. At the end of that time, however, seeing that he was serving the country without receiving any reward, while I, who had far less claims, was being liberally rewarded, I employed him to assist me, and paid him myself without having any communication with the Executive on the subject. I did not even know that the Council, as a body, was aware that Mr. Palmer was employed by me. I stake my word of honor, that I was appointed as freely as the present Attorney General. Will the last speaker deny the fact that I discharged the duties of the office while I held it. It was a free and voluntary act on my part to employ Mr. Palmer, and I was in circumstances which enabled me to do it; but I was in no way bound to employ him, and received no more assistance from him than the present Attorney General receives from any lawyer he pleases to employ.

Hon. Mr. HOWLAN.—It appears to me rather strange that the Executive should not be aware at the time that the hon. member employed and paid Mr. Palmer. Though I do live at Tignish, I can read the newspapers, and I know that it was the general opinion throughout the Island that the Government, when they gave him the appointment, intended him to act as he did.

Mr. BRECKEN.—I was sworn into office without one word being said concerning Mr. Palmer; and what I did, I did of my own accord. If I chose to employ and fee him liberally, I had a perfect right to do so. I knew when I held the office that of right it belonged to him.

Hon. Mr. HOWLAN.—The hon. member is only getting deeper into the mire. He says that the Government were not aware of the fact that he was employing Mr. Palmer. I think that had he employed a gentleman of the opposite party they would not have remained long in ignorance of it.

Mr. McNEILL.—I am, Mr. Chairman, one of the “young members,” but I may, perhaps, say a few words, though I do not wish to occupy the time of this Committee. I had not the slightest idea that the paragraph now under discussion would have been the cause of so long a debate, as it did not convey any censure upon the late Government for having delayed the General Election. I do not intend, Sir, to go over all the ground that has been traversed by the speakers before me, or to argue whether the hon. member for Charlottetown or Mr. Palmer was Attorney General in 1859. But, Sir, we have been twitted for the manner in which we are carrying out Responsible Government. I would ask if the conduct of the present Opposition, when in power, showed any very great degree of consistency? I well remember that in 1859 the hon. member for Charlottetown (Mr. Brecken) came out to Wheatley River to support a friend of his who was running the Election in that district. He made a splendid speech on the occasion,—for, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member can be very eloquent—and almost the whole of it was in favor of excluding officeholders from the floor of the House. This, Sir, was in the days of the Political Alliance; and the reasons given by the hon. member for having since changed his policy are not very satisfactory to me at least. The Tenant League cannot certainly have influenced him, for that League was not in existence at the time. Allusions have also been made, Sir, to our not working harmoniously together; but the Opposition must remember that we have not had a fair trial, and should consider, too, that such taunts come with a bad grace from them. Every one knew that during the last year the Conservative Government was composed of anything by harmonious elements. First, one member of the Executive was put out, or resigned, then another, till finally no Government was left. Though we are not carrying out the Departmental system in its fullest sense, still, if our principles are right, no censure should be cast upon us.

Hon. Mr. DUNCAN.—I do not think that the last speaker has said anything worthy of a reply, so that none is needed. I must say, however, that the present Government have seen the error of their ways, as we did. We went into one extreme, and for four years had not an office-holder on the floor of this House. When we found that our policy was wrong we acknowledged it at the hustings; but the present Government has never publicly disavowed their former Departmental policy, though now, after they have got into power, we find them tacitly admitting that the policy which they condemned in the Conservatives (that of having three officers on the floor) is the correct one. But, Mr. Chairman, is it from necessity or from a desire to do what is right, that they have appointed only three of their members to office? I am inclined to think that they feared some would be rejected, and the case of the Queen’s Printer shows that it might have been as well for the party had he not taken office, though my hon. colleague has told us that he is glad that gentleman was rejected.

Hon. Mr. LAIRD.—The last speaker has said that the Conservatives, eight years ago, went to the hustings with the avowed determination to allow no officeholder on the floor, and that for four years they carried this policy out. This I will admit, but I am not so willing to concede the truth of his other statement—that they afterwards at the hustings acknowledged their error. It, I think, was understood among the members of the then Government that they were at that election to be silent on the subject of officeholders; and I am of opinion that the members of that party made no profession upon the subject, and that they were returned without any questions being asked them. It is well known that from that time they had three officeholders in the Legislature, and during last session we find them bringing in a Bill relating to Election Laws (Par. Rep. 1866, page 52) providing for as many as eight officers in the House of Assembly and Legislative Council. The paragraph relating to these officers reads as follows:—

“The Bill provides that any person holding the office of Colonial Secretary, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Colonial Treasurer, Commissioner of Public Lands, Postmaster General, Financial Secretary or Collector of Impost for Charlottetown, and being at the same time a member of the House of Assembly or Legislative Council, who shall resign his office, and within one month after his resignation accept any other of the said offices, under the same administration, shall not thereby vacate his seat in the said Assembly or Legislative Council.”

The statement of my hon. friend, the member for Belfast, that he was glad on certain grounds that the Queen’s Printer had been rejected by his constituents, has been made the subject of many remarks. The members on the Opposition side of the House must certainly be very obtuse. The hon. member only said that he was glad that gentleman’s constituents had rejected him if they did not believe his professions sincere regarding his future policy on Confederation. This discussion has already been continued too long, but it is necessary to disprove the statements made regarding the inconsistency of the Government, when the present Opposition when in power. That the present is a true Responsible form of Government is evident from the definition given by the Hon. Attorney General;

[Page 16]

for if Responsible Government is a government to carry out the wishes of the people, as expressed through their Representatives, surely the nineteen or eighteen members on the Government side of this House can form a truly responsible Administration.

Hon. Mr. DUNCAN.—I do not, Mr. Chairman, find fault with the exclusion of officeholders from the floor of this House; but I wish to tell the hon. gentleman who last spoke, that I canvassed as a Conservative, and only as a Conservative—not as an Independent. I would feel obliged to the hon. member, if he would tell me where the Independent members are in the present House. Surely Independent members cannot be members and supporters of a Government. They are returned as Independents, and they support a Government before they are a month old. These members should, I think, remain dumb, when consistency is spoken of.

Hon. Mr. LAIRD.—The last speaker says he has always been a Conservative; surely he must mean a converted one—for he was once opposed to having any offices on the floor of the House; then he would admit three, and last Session eight. He has also referred to the Independent members. I can tell the hon. member for Belfast that I canvassed on the principles that I now hold. I never canvassed as an “Independent;” and, therefore, when I found that the present Government held the same principles, I was perfectly free to join them.

Hon. Mr. DUNCAN.—Then the whole Government is Independent.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION.—The hon. member for Bedeque (Mr. Laird) has said that, in 1863, the Conservatives gave no notice to the country of their change of policy, regarding office-holders. What better proof could the country have of the change in their opinions, than the fact that they sent two gentlemen (Mr. Pope and Mr. Palmer) to their constituencies in that year, while holding office. There was not any curtain kept before the public, as the hon. member has insinuated. I cannot but wonder at the sophistry of the hon. gentleman in bringing forward that clause which he read, relating to office-holders. That clause does not prove that the Conservatives were willing to have all these officers on the floor of the House; but merely provided that any person, at any future time, holding one of these offices, by vacating it and accepting another, should not thereby forfeit his seat. This matter has been brought up as a delusion and a snare. The clause, too, was not carried by the Conservative party as a party measure. We all (Government and Opposition) were a happy family in passing the Bill. It is true that my friend, (Mr. Howat) the master of the situation, as he used to be called, objected to the insertion of the words—“Finance Minister,” as that was an office not recognized in the Colony.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—There are many views regarding Responsible Government, but I think that the definition given by me already,—that a Government is responsible so long as a majority of Representatives are willing to support it in carrying out the wishes of the people, and only so long,—is the truest definition. I was once conversing with a gentleman in one of the other Provinces, and in the course of our conversation he asked me who was then Attorney General of the Island. I told him; and he asked how it could be the case, since that gentleman did not hold a seat in the Executive, and added that we were not carrying out Responsible Government. This only shows how different opinions are upon this subject. We may, Mr. Chairman, debate here for two days without arriving at any conclusion. All that can be said is that a government, so long as supported by a majority, is responsible; if not, the people have the power to turn them out. Exception may be taken to this, but as we can arrive at no satisfactory conclusion, it is better to say that both parties have changed their views. All this discussion has nothing to do with the clause before the Committee. That clause merely says that we are willing to engage in the business of the country even at this late period. I trust that the debate will now terminate.

Hon. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION.—I hope, Mr. Chairman, that it will, but the Hon. Attorney General must not lay the flattering unction to his soul that no one understands Responsible Government except those on his side of the House. In 1850 we were carrying out Responsible Government in fulfilling the wishes of the people relative to officeholders, and the Address sent home by the Opposition shows that they were then opposing that form of Government.

The second paragraph was then agreed to, when the Committee rose and reported progress.

House adjourned.