Province of Canada, Legislative Assembly, 6th Parl, 1st Sess (28 July 1858)


Document Information

Date: 1858-07-28
By: Province of Canada (Parliament), Montreal Herald
Citation: “Legislative Assembly” Montreal Herald (31 July 1858).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).


REPEAL OF THE UNION.

The House then went into the further consideration of Mr. Mackenzie’s motion—that the political union between Upper and Lower Canada occasions great discontent to a large portion of Her Majesty’s subjects, and asking for a repeal of it; and of Dr. Connor’s amendment “That the Union cannot be attended with happy results so long as territorial distinction is maintained between Upper and Lower Canada, and that the maintenance in the Executive of gentlemen from Upper Canada who do not possess the confidence of that section of the country, has produced great discontent, and a desire for constitutional changes which would secure the rights of Upper Canadians,”—and of Mr. Gowan’s amendment to the latter, “That in view of the large responsibilities undertaken by the United Provinces, it is not desirable to take any step to weaken the Union, but rather to cement the ties by mutual forbearance and good will.”

A division was then taken on Mr. Gowan’s amendment as follows: Yeas 67; Nay 34.

YEAS—Messrs. Alleyn, Archambeault, Baby, Benjamin, Buchanan, Burton, John Cameron, Malcolm Cameron, Campbell, Carling, Attorney General Cartier, Cook, Cout[illegible], Dawson, Desaulniers, Dionne, Drummond, Dufresne, Dunkin, Fellowes, Fergusson, Ferres, Fortier, Fournier, Gaudet, Gauvreau, Gill, Gowan, Harwood, Hogan, Holmes, Labelle, Lacoste, Langevin, Laporte, LeBoutillier, Lemieux, Loranger, Macbeth, Attorney General Macdonald, Mattice, McCann, McGee, McLeod, McMicken, Morin, Ouimet, Panet, Playfair, Pope, William F. Powell, Price, Robinson, Roblin, Solicitor General Rose, Richard W. Scott, William Scott, Sherwood, Sicotte, Simard, Sincennes, Smith, Talbot, Tasse, Terrill, Turcotte.—67.

NAYS—Messrs. Beaubien, Bigger, Bourassa, Brown, Bureau, Burwell, Chapais, Christie, Clark, Connor, Dorion, Dorland, Foley, Gould, Hebert, Howland, Laberge, Mackenzie, McDougall, McKellar, Merritt, Mowat, Munro, Notman, Papineau, Patrick, Piche, Walker Powell, Rymal, Short, Stirton, Thibaudeau, White, Wright.—34.

Mr. THIBAUDEAU then moved that although repeal is not expedient, yet the system of governing without a double majority gives rise to discontent and ill-founded.

Mr. GOWAN objected to the amendment, as, it had no affinity to the main motion.

The SPEAKER ruled the motion out of order.

The question being then on Dr. Connor’s amendment.

Mr. MERRITT was opposed to the amendment, because it stated what was not a fact. He had always been opposed to the Union, and should therefore vote against the amendment. We were now paying the highest [illegible] duties on the American Continent and [illegible] proceeded much further [illegible] should be [illegible] to direct taxation. The remedy was a representation [illegible] the Home Government that a change was necessary in the constitution to place some check on our extravagant expenditure.

Mr. SHERWOOD asked who had been more instrumental in bringing debt upon the Province, than the hon. gentleman who had [illegible] down? He [Mr. Merritt] had advocated [illegible] canals, which cast great sums, and now [illegible] advocated railways to destroy those canals [illegible] should be the last person to talk about [illegible] debt of this Province. [Hear.] He [illegible] the assertion which had been made in [illegible] the Union.

Mr. BROWN—Far more outside the House than within.

Mr. SHERBROOKE denied it, and asserted that there was ten times more agitation on the time that they had wasted in useless discussion this session. Why not deal with the questions before the country, and not attempt to drag themselves into a dissolution of the present Union or a federation of the whole Provinces.

Mr. BUCHANAN said there was no man in Canada who had done so much for the country as the member for Lincoln (Merritt.) With regard to the proposal of that hon. gentleman—whether we should ask the Imperial Government to guarantee [illegible] loan to this Province—he thought there was no doubt of such a policy; but the difficulty [illegible], whether we could obtain such a loan. It came, however, with a bad grace from that hon. member to speak as he did of the tariff, after having supported it. [Hear.] If we paid more per head for customs duties than the Americans, it was because the latter had slaves who consumed nothing, and had their manufactories of long growth, whereas in that respect we were in our infancy. For a time he had looked upon the Union as oppressive to Upper Canada, but he now thought differently. Canada had great resources, which, if properly managed, would make [illegible] great people. He would, however, rather [illegible] disunion, than allow the Usury Laws for Upper Canada to remain as at present.

Mr. FERRES denied [illegible] highly taxed as the American people.

Mr. MERRITT gave figures [illegible] substantiate his assertion, [illegible] the custom returns of 1858.

Mr. FERRES said that if he took the returns for 1858 he would find a very different state of matters.

Mr. DORION would vote [illegible] the amendment, because it stated the [illegible] worked well, which was not the case. [illegible] would advocate the repeal of the Union in Lower Canada, would, before six months be the most popular man in that section of the Province. There was, he believed, a growing discontent in both sections of the Province, at the present Union.

Mr. DUNKIN said the resolution [illegible] that the Union worked well. The amendment as it stood was a truism. Everything had worked better than was expected seventeen years ago. We were in a position, by the exercise of mutual forbearance and good-will to exert a powerful influence on this continent. But Upper Canada and Lower Canada, if separated could not remain independent Annexation to the United States was the [illegible] left to us in such an emergency.

Hon. Mr. LORANGER denied that there was a desire in Lower Canada for a dissolution of the Union.

Mr. CAUCHON supported the view of the member for Montreal, in reference to the feeling of Lower Canada.

Mr. J. S. MACDONALD said every [illegible] of his country should endeavor to maintain the existing Union. He regretted that Mr. Dorion had made use of the language which he had [illegible].

Mr. MACKENZIE made some remarks against the continuance of the Union.

Mr. BELLINGHAM had been opposed to the Union, but, now that the Provinces were united, he would not give any vote to separate them. But we were evidently on the road either to repudiation or direct taxation. For that no Ministry was accountable. It was the fault of our responsible Government.

Mr. CHAPAIS was proceeding to speak when the House rose at six o’clock.

Mr. CHAPAIS resumed his speech. Upper Canada, he maintained, was a purely agricultural country and never could be otherwise, while Lower Canada held manufacturing advantages which Upper Canada never could have. But should the agricultural scourges which had afflicted Lower Canada for 20 years visit the Upper Province, what would be the condition of the West? It would be worse than Lower Canada. He remembered when his own parish exported [illegible]2,009 bushels of wheat to foreign countries—but a very different state of things now prevailed. Then in Lower Canada they had inexhaustible fisheries, and lumber and other sources of wealth which in time would attract a large population. [illegible] the “No Popery” cry in Upper Canada they had this of Representation by Population and he could tell the people of the Upper Canada section that if they continued that cry, a separation of the Union must ensue. The Lower Canadians would never be content to be in a state of inferiority to Upper Canada, in respect to representation. As to the federal Union the Lower Provinces had an interest in being united with Lower Canada, since there were there 100,000 Frenchmen, who at present were isolated and longed for that Union. This would ensure a majority for Lower Canada. Upper Canada disliked Lower Canada, and its policy was to frighten Lower Canada by the representation idea. By union with the Lower Provinces, Lower Canada would gain, and day by day their relations were drawing closer. Indeed if a political union did not take place a real union would seen be consummated; [illegible] in commerce they were coming in closer contact, and the extension of the roads were fast bringing the peoples together. In these Provinces the liberal ideas predominated, and they would find in Lower Canada men who, though not making such a great professions of liberality as others, were in reality sincere friends of a liberal policy. For these reasons, Lower Canada had no reason to fear a Federal Union or, if the union with Upper Canada could no longer be worked comfortably, the dissolution of it would not be regarded as a very serious calamity. He did not desire separation, he would not do anything to bring it about, and he hoped the men entrusted with the interests of Lower Canada in the Government would know how to exercise that prudence which was necessary to preserve its rights.

Mr. PATRICK said the people of Upper Canada were dissatisfied with the Union, and he could see no way of escape from present difficulties except by a dissolution of the Union.

Mr. GOWAN’s amendment of the main motion was then put and carried.

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT.

Mr. THIBAUDEAU moved that the House is deeply grateful to Her Majesty for complying with the address of the Canadian Parliament, praying Her Majesty to select a permanent Seat of Government, but that this House deeply regrets that the city which Her Majesty was advised to select, is not acceptable to a large majority of the Canadian people.

Mr. SCOTT (Ottawa) was of opinion that the motion was out of order. It was identical with that proposed by the hon. member for Montreal, recently, and voted down by the House.

The SPEAKER ruled the motion out of order. The principle it involved was precisely the same as that which was already been decided by the House.

Mr. DUFRESNE enquired why the hon. member for Montreal did not bring up his second resolution, affirming that Montreal ought to be the Seat of Government?

Mr. DORION replied that he never intended to move that Montreal should be fixed on as the Seat of Government while Ottawa was decided on.

Mr. BROWN, addressing the Quebec members, asked them were they satisfied they had been deceived, than told this question would come up again.

Hon. Mr. SICOTTE said that the hon. member for Portneuf ha doubtless arranged with the senior member for Toronto at this question should be brought up [illegible] such a shape as to compel the Speaker to rule it out of order. He called upon the hon. member to acknowledge this.

Mr. MORIN—I acknowledge that the Government arranged it.

Mr. SICOTTE denied it, as it would have been wrong for the Government to make any arrangement to prevent the House from coming to a decision on any subject. Why had not the member for Terrebonne taken up the subject and made a motion of his own?

Mr. THIBAUDEAU remarked that the Speaker had not objected to the letter of the motion.

Mr. SICOTTE said it was not his part to dictate the terms of a motion to any hon. member. He felt that when personal interests had been calmed down it would be seen that the present Government had done [illegible] was right in taking their present position.

Mr. DORION complained that the promise made to ministerial supporters that the question should come up that day, had not been kept.

Hon. Mr. CARTIER said that it would come up again. He maintained that the Assembly had been taken by surprise, by the conduct of the hon. member for Montreal with reference to this motion. He would not any longer consent to be tricked by that hon. member for Montreal with reference to this motion. He would not any longer consent to be tricked by that hon. member. When the question was brought up last week, he had declared his willingness to have a perfect and full examination of the subject. The Government was quite ready to have the subject discussed, and they had reason to suppose the member for Montreal was sincere. But how had that hon. member acted? That hon. member said that out of deference to the House he would not propose a motion which had once been rejected. Yet he would allow another person to do so, though he did not wish it. The hon. member had acted in such a way as to throw the blame of his own want of candor on the Government. Why did not the hon. member for Iberville (Mr. Laberge) bring up his own motion? The Government had thrown no obstacles in the way of the discussion.

Mr. THIBAUDEAU said that if anything the [illegible] this subject, at which some seven friends of the Administration were present. He did not remain more than ten minutes, and would distinctly state he had made no arrangements to prevent this resolution coming up.

Mr. HARWOOD then moved that it be resolved that Her Majesty be asked to reconsider the selection he has been advised to make the name Quebec as the future capital of Canada.

Mr. BROWN thought the motion out of order.

Attorney General MACDONALD said that the second resolution of the hon. member for Montreal had not been voted on during the session and was therefore not out of order.

The SPEAKER decided that the motion had been changed—the name Quebec being substituted for Montreal—and was not therefore in order.

Mr. DUNKIN then moved an Address to Her Majesty to reconsider her decision and name Montreal as the future Seat of Government. The hon. member addressed the House at much length in favor of the motion. The effect of this motion was to respectfully tell Her Majesty that whereas, before, they were unable to arrive at any decision in the matter, and prayed her to decide for them; now, they were prepared to decide for themselves—they would name Montreal—and prayed Her Majesty to alter her decision to that effect. He had always preferred Montreal to Ottawa for the Seat of Government. It was the most convenient and central point. The perambulating system had been condemned; and the place chosen for a Seat of Government was a very small place and was not the centre or a rich country; whereas Montreal or Toronto were situated in a fertile country, and in the centre of a dense population. But Montreal was preferable, and he believed it was a misfortune that Montreal had not been selected. At the same time he should state that in the event of his being forced into a direct vote of Ottawa, or no Ottawa he would feel called on to support the decision which had been already made.

Mr. SCOTT rose to a point of order. The motion before the chair had in reality been indirectly negatived on motion of hon. member for Montreal.

The SPEAKER said he had already determined the motion to be in order.

Mr. BROWN said that if a vote could have been taken without regard to party associations, on the motion of the hon. member for Montreal, two-thirds of the House would have voted against the selection of Ottawa. His opinion on the subject was unchanged that the time had not arrived for settling the Seat of Government. It was absurd to spend a large amount of money in the erection of public buildings at Ottawa, which he felt convinced, was the very last place which ought to be selected. For the first time the Government had that night stated by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, that the Seat of Government would be carried to Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. SICOTTE said that in speaking on the subject on a former occasion, he had used precisely the same words.

Mr. BROWN said that the hon. member had not, then, being understood and had that hon. member spoken as clearly on this subject, while the vote of non confidence was being discussed, as he had spoken that night, there was no doubt the motion of want of confidence would have been carried. There could, he thought, be but one opinion, that Bytown had been selected by the Colonial Secretary, at the instigation of some interested parties behind the scenes. The best course they could take was to start proceedings in the matter. They were fast approaching a solution of the difficulties which now divided the Provinces, and until these had been settled, they ought not to spend a large sum of money in erecting the buildings at Ottawa. He would therefore move in amendment that an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that no action be taken towards the erection of public buildings in Ottawa for the permanent accommodation of the Executive Government and Legislature, or for the removal of the public department’s to that city.

Mr. PICHE then moved in amendment that it is the opinion of this House that the city of Ottawa ought not to be the permanent Seat of Government for the Province.

Mr. GOWAN would tell the hon. member for Drummond and Arthabaska (Mr. Dunkin) that Ottawa possessed more of the element of a dense population than either of the cities that hon. members had mentioned. East, West, North and South of Ottawa the soil was most fertile, which neither of the cities named could boast of in an equal degree. Again, Ottawa had immense water power; and in no place yet named, would the public records be more safe than in Ottawa. In point of population, Ottawa was, also, the most central, in point of territory and population, of any of the places named. It had, too, a mixed French and English population, and ample justice might there be done to both races and all creeds in classes. He would ask what stronger proof there could be given of the wisdom of the parliament in referring the matter to the queen, that the amendment of the hon. members for Toronto and Berthier (Mr. Piche.) Neither hon. members pretend to say where the Seat of Government ought to be placed they merely ask a reversal of the Queen’s decision, and keep the question on open one. Thus they would have a powerful means of agitating and exciting the country. As hon. and just men, the House was, he contended, bound to carry out the decision of the queen. He was a resident of Toronto. His dearest interest were bound up with it. But he would not allow his personal feelings to interfere with this public duty. He felt the Seat of Government ought to be fixed in Ottawa, and would, therefore, vote against the amendments.

Hon. Mr. SICOTTE, in order to show that his speech on a former occasion had been as explicit as that evening, read his speech, as reported, and called attention to the fact that the speech in question was fully as explicit as that made by him on the present occasion.

Colonel PLAYFAIR fully concurred with the view taken by Col. Gowan. In every respect, Ottawa was far the best place for a Seat of Government.

Mr. HARWOOD spoke against the selection of Ottawa as the Seat of Government.

Mr. MERRITT said that Ottawa was not the most central situation, and on that point he would oppose it. He thought that perambulating system ought to be continued. In his opinion, the most central place would be somewhere on the Welland Canal. (Laughter.)

Major CAMPBELL thought that the motion was a downright insult to Her Majesty, who had been made an umpire in this case.

Mr. PATRICK Can curd in the sentiments of the hon. member who had last spoken. He was very much surprised to find the hon. member for Vaureuil, who spoke so highly of his loyalty, yet expressive determination to insult Her Majesty in the brutal in coarse manner proposed by this motion. In his opinion the sooner they escaped from this unhealthy city to Ottawa the better. He would, therefore, vote against all the amendments.

Mr. POWELL dealt with the grounds taken by the senior member for Toronto against sustaining the decision of Her Majesty. As to the argument that Ottawa was but a small city, and therefore the amount of public opinion brought to bear on the Legislature would be very small M-IN large cities, the sort of healthy public opinion brought to bear on the Legislature had been very small indeed. The country was the place where public opinion was most healthy and appear. In point of situation, Ottawa was no doubt the most central. He would maintain this in opposition to the statements of that modern geographer, the hon. member for Lincoln. Of the merits of Ottawa he had frequently spoken. In point of centrality, mixed population, water power and every requisite, Ottawa was equal to any other city in the Province; and if hon. members could be so far influenced by personal considerations as to seek to reverse the Royal decision evoked by themselves—if hon. members so far forgot themselves as to comment so dishon. and ungracious and action and ash then all hope for honest legislation was added end. He was fully prepared to carry out the decision, and would move an amendment that in the opinion of this House Quebec ought not to be selected as the Seat of Government.

The SPEAKER ruled the amendment out of order [illegible] there had been already a main motion, an amendment end an amendment to that amendment. The hon. member therefore could not now move further amendments.

Mr. ROBINSON said that so far as Toronto was concerned, he was prepared to prove that that city was the most central in point of territory and population. He would first take up the point of population. In 1843 the population of Canada was 1,190,000, and of this there were then in the Home District and ash in the midst of which Toronto was situated—only 275,000 inhabitants That is of the whole population of United Canada, the population of this district was but 23 per cent. Now, in 1851, after elapse of six years the population of United Canada was 1,842,225. West of Toronto the population then had increased to 580,000—showing an increase of 80 per cent. west, while there was only 37 per cent east of the boundary of Toronto. Now with this calculation was correct, and if the population increased in the same ratio, it was plain that in 1867M-9 years hence—the population West of Toronto would be 2,570,000, and east of it 2,370,000. Toronto would therefore be the centre of Canada the wealth and population of Canada. Where, it might be asked, could we accommodate such a large population? He would reply, in the immense country West of us, the Hudson’s Bay Territory In point of situation it was also a fact that Toronto was more central than either Ottawa or Montreal. A reference to the map must convince any one of this Besides we were better situated than the other cities with respect to commanding the trade of the Lakes. They got the trade of Huron, Erie and Ontario and how did not respect a great advantage compared with the other cities. In another matter—which showed the progress of the country, railroads, Toronto could also boast a pre-eminence The gross amount earned per week and the average earnings per mile of the railways west of Toronto, exhibit returns three times as great as those east of the city. That, he apprehended, was a fact of some significancy in determining the Seat of Government. Again, the great customs returns of Quebec and Montreal had been frequently spoken of. Now he had customs returns of eleven millions fully seven millions had been for the country West of Toronto The enormous amount of timber exported from the Ottawa had been spoken of; but in even that respect he could show that the country West of Toronto excelled. In 1856 the total value of the timber exports from Quebec was £3,146,446 currency. Fully 1/2 of this amount was contributed by the Western portion of the Province, and another considerable portion came from the Western States, Michigan and others.

Mr. POWELL—Oh!

Mr. ROBINSON had no doubt his hon. friend was getting gradually astonished. He might also mention that in Upper Canada there was more good land to be purchased now than in Lower Canada. [illegible] were 90 per cent. more in Upper than in Lower Canada. They had also heard the different competing cities compared in a military point of view, with regard to their capability of defences. Now he would beg to remind hon. members that Toronto was 100 miles from the national boundary, and Ottawa 40 miles. Montreal and Kingston being shut up during six months of the year, were during that. In inaccessible by ice where is in Toronto we work, as was shown by the last war, secure until the position of Stoney Creek in the Heights of Burlington would have first to be carried. He would so take this occasion of stating, that in point of health Toronto was superior to the other cities, Montreal or Ottawa. In all these respects Toronto was decidedly the best fitted for the Seat of Government. He therefore intended to propose during the debate, that Toronto be selected as the Seat of Government.

Mr. DUNKIN said he had no doubt the object of the hon. senior member for Toronto was to keep alive agitation, and to induce the belief in England that everything in Canada was in an unfixed and uncertain state. Now the simple effect of such a course would be ruin the credit of the country in the English market, and absolutely destroy the interests Of Montreal in regard to the Seat of Government.

Hon. Attorney General MACDONALD said that the hon. member for Toronto had previously acceded to the policy of the Government in fixing the Seat of Government. Yet now he would unfix it until some great questions of public policy were settled. The only question of great public importance remaining unsettled was the Representation question So far as the vote of that House could go, he might remark that that question had for the present session been decided by the House. Former Governments feeling the difficulty of this question had made it an open one. It was impossible for any Government to submit anyone play Sam dash as on such a proposition all the other local interests would unite against that place. In order to get over this difficulty, Government came down to the House and fully and fairly stated the case, asking an appropriation and recommending that Her Majesty be asked to select the Seat of Government. The Legislature of that day agreed as to the advisability of this course, and Her Majesty was asked to give her decision. He presumed that in assenting to that course, every hon. member had acted in good faith. He for one had done so, though he felt that his constituency had strong claims for the Seat of Government. Her Majesty, it was arranged, was not to be advised on the subject by the Canadian Government, and accordingly no such advice had been tendered. Her Majesty gave her decision; And although strictly speaking, that despatch ought not to have been made public to laid before the House still the Government knowing that there was room in a matter of this kind for the charge that the despatch had been concealed to allow of speculation, at once made it public through the Press That decision had been subsequently ratified by the Legislature, and the appropriation for the necessary buildings have been passed. He thought the amendment of the hon. member for Berthier a brusque and uncourteous insult to Her Majesty, and one which decidedly negative the pretensions Of Montreal. The House had already strongly decided in favor of the permanent Seat of Government, and in the last parliament there was such an overwhelming opinion in favor of it, that emotion affirming it was carried without a division. As he said before, the effective the motion of the hon. member for Berthier was merely to declare in the rudest and boldest manner that the House regretted Her Majesty’s decision. If the hon. member for Montreal had taken the more open course of fighting for Montreal and not entered into the present party arrangement, the hon. member would have averted the consequences of the vote on the hon. member for Berthier’s motion—which would undoubtedly be against the interests of Montreal. He would vote for sustaining the decision of Her Majesty, and vote against the amendments of the hon. members for Berthier and Toronto.

Mr. DORION said he had acted, in his opinion, for the best interests of Montreal.

Mr. MACKENZIE hoped hon. members would at once come to the vote.

Mr. DRUMMOND applauded the manner in which the hon. Attorney General had treated this question, and hoped the Ministry would be sustained in carrying out their decision.

The House then divided in favor of Mr. Piche’s amendment, which was carried.—Yeas, 64; Nays, 50. [See telegram.]

The question was then put on the main motion as amended.

Mr. POWELL moved in amendment that in the opinion of the House, Quebec ought not to be the permanent Seat of Government.

Mr. BROWN said that the House could have no doubt that the motion which had just been carried wasn’t expressed disapproval of the whole policy of the Government; and in order to test the sense of the House, he would move that the House do now adjourn.

Atty. Gen. MACDONALD said the hon. gentleman had given a challenge. In order to see whether the Government possess the confidence of that House, he had proposed that the House do now adjourn. He (Attorney General) would accept that challenge. He would accept that mode of deciding as to whether the Government possess the confidence of the House, and if the majority of the House agreed to an adjournment, the Government would consider that the administration of affairs had been taken out of their hands.

Mr. CAUCHON said that if hon. gentlemen were in earnest they would show it on this occasion by voting for the adjournment.

Atty. Gen. CARTIER said that for his part he would echo the sentiments of the hon. Attorney General West on this subject, that the motion before the House was a test of their confidence in the Government.

Mr. DORION said he thought the hon. member for Toronto too hasty. It prevented some members who would have voted non-confidence from doing so He was bound to vote against the motion; For he was determined to carry out the decision of her Majesty. But he would wish it to be understood that in so doing he did not vote confidence in the Government. The Government he thought ought to have been more energetic. Had they been so the question would have been carried.

Hon. Mr. SICOTTE Said that if by saying the Government wanted energy, the hon. member meant to say that they had been deficient in soliciting votes; he (Mr. Sicotte) would say that he for one would solicit no hon. member for his vote; and in his opinion the Government had acted properly.

Mr. J. S. MACDONALD was prepared to vote non confidence.

Mr. POWELL was prepared to vote on the issue raised by the hon. member for Toronto. As an Ottawa member he was fully satisfied with the policy of the Government. Their course had been manly consistent and hon..

Mr. ROSS would vote for the adjournment, but not as a vote of non confidence in the ministry.

Mr. Roblin was delighted that the hon. Attorney General had accepted the gauntlet thrown by the hon. member for Toronto, the hon. members opposite must now abide by the result of their leader’s policy.

Mr. CIMON said that in the vote first given he had not given his vote as one of want of confidence in the ministry. He and others had treated the question as an open one.

The House then divided on Mr. Brown’s motion for adjournment—or want of confidence in the ministry. Motion was lost by a majority of 11. Yeas 50; Nays 61. [See telegram.]

Mr. CIMON then move that the debate be adjourned, which was negatived. Yeas, 36; Nays, 67.

Hon. Attorney General MCDONALD said it was of no consequence to the Government now whether the House went on or not. They had opposed the adjournment merely because it was a test vote.

Mr. BROWN said if the hon. member were satisfied with that vote he was easily satisfied.

Dr. CONNOR asked the Attorney General whether after the vote which had just been taken the Government intended to go to Ottawa?

Attorney General MACDONALD replied that the hon. member having voted want of confidence in him, had no right to ask the question. (Laughter.)

Dr. CONNOR was indignant at such an answer.

Mr. DALY said that the hon. member, representing a majority one, (laughter,) expressed great indignation at the answer of the Attorney General. But he (Mr. Daly) Thought the hon. members concerns was much more on personal than public grounds. As to the question before the House, he was in favour of supporting her majesty’s decision.

After some further discussion the House adjourned—it being a quarter past two o’clock.

Leave a Reply