Province of Canada, Legislative Assembly, 8th Parl, 4th Sess (1 September 1865)


Document Information

Date: 1865-09-01
By: Province of Canada (Parliament), Morning Chronicle
Citation: “Provincial Parliament. Legislative Assembly. Friday, Sept. 1st” [Quebec] Morning Chronicle (2 September 1865).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).


PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Friday, September 1

After routine business-

Railway Returns

Mr. A Mackenzie moved that the Grand Trunk Railway Company and Buffalo and Lake Huron Railway Company, who have not yet compiled with the order of this House of the 25th January last, asking for certain returns, be requestioned to furnish the said returns forthwith.

Mr. Bell wanted ot know what was meant by the word “forthwith”? Did it mean, in this case, to-day, or to-morrow?

Mr. Dunkin – It means forthwith. (Laughter)

Mr. Bell – As, I understand, there should be a reasonable time

Mr. A. Mackenzie said he wsa not an authority in this matter, but would refer the honorable gentleman to “Webster.” He did not say this in any trifling spirit, but “forthwith” was the term used universally in the Imperial Parliament, in such cases. The House must be the judge of the meaning of the term.

Mr. Bell was as anxious for the information as anybody, but some definite time ought to be fixed. If forthwith was to mean, in this case, immediately or instanter, it would not be practicable to comply with the motion. Let a reasonable period be fixed within which to obtain the information required.

The motion was carried.

A Question of Privilege – a Bogus Telegram.

Mr. A. Dufresne arose to a question of privilege. He had no desire to make any comment whatever. He would simply relate the circumstances, and leave the House to judge of the conduct which he would expose. Yesterday morning, a telegraphic despatch – which he now held in his hand – was sent to the telegraph office, couched in these terms “To J. B. Bourgeois, Esq., – Mr. Raymond has lost his seat. Hurrah. – Alexander “Dufresne.” (Laughter). Now he (Mr. Dufresne) had never written this despatch – had had no knowledge of it, and he pronounced it for a forgery. (Hear, hear). Most fortunately it happened that the person who had concocted the document forgot to insert Mr. Bourgeau’s address in the telegram, and shortly after it had been sent to the telegraph office, a young man connected with the telegraph office placed the despatch in his (Mr. Dufresne’s) hands, with the following query written upon a slip at the bottom: “Where is this going to?” (Laughter.) He (Mr. Dufresne) immediately wrote the following upon the paper: “Don’t send this; it is not my telegram.” A few minutes afterwards, he received the following note form the telegraph manager; “It was one of the messengers of the House who brought this message – an old man, who cannot speak English – “Yours, W. Cassille.” ON enquire he (Mr. Dufresne) discovered who it was had carried the message, and also that it had been given him by an hon. member of this House. He did not know whether it was permitted to an hon. member of this House to use the name of another hon. member of this House without authority, for the purpose of circulating lying statements. (Hear, hear). He had, moreover, now had the facts before the House, and it was for the House to pronounce an opinion, if it thought fit to do so. For his part, he did not hesitate to denounce the [sic] in question as reprehensible in the extreme. (Hear, hear).

Hon. J. S. Macdonald said that this was a very serious matter indeed, and involved a very natural suspicion that the author of this deed was not a stranger to acts of the kind. (Hear, hear). At any rate, he thought it was the duty of any hon. member who might have been concerned in it to rise in his place and give a full and satisfactory explanation, or suffer himself to be branded, as he deserved, as a forger and a slanderer. (Hear, hear, and oh, oh.) Such a liberty as that which had been brought to light should not be tolerated. The House should take the earliest opportunity of stigmatizing it in fitting terms. If the cap fitted, say hon. member of this House let him rise and expose himself; if it did not fit any one let the matter drop. (hear, hear).

Hon. Mr. Holton thought it was very strange indeed that the leaders of the House had nothing to say in this matter. Yesterday we had no less than to instances of the extraordinary conduct of hon. members of the Government in matters affecting the privileges of this House. In the first place, the honorable member for Lambton had brought under their attention the contemptuous and disrespectful manner in which the order of the House had been treated by a certain corporation. Again, last evening, an election committee had presented a report charging a member of this House with gross acts of corruption, yet the Government had nothing to say. To-day, what did we hear? An hon. member stood up in his place and stated that he had been informed that another hon. member had been guilty of, to say the least, most extraordinary conduct in improperly using the name of the hon. member for Iberville, and sending forth, in that hon. gentleman’s name, a forged paper. (Hear, hear). Yet, forsooth, hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches did not feel that they were called upon to say or do anything in the matter (Opposition cheers). Their course in reference to this case was a fitting commentary upon their conduct throughout (Hear, hear). He (Mr. Holton) must express his unfeigned astonishment that the leaders of the House – those who had, in a more particular manner, the charge of maintaining the respectability and the privileges of the House – should not feel it their duty to say a single word (hear, hear).

Hon. J. A. Macdonald said he did not know what the hon. gentleman wanted the Government to do in this [sic]  – in this imposing matter. So far as he (Mr. M.) understood it, the telegram seemed to have been a hoax.

Hon. Mr. Holton – a hoax! – forging a member’s name, a hoax! (Laughter).

Hon. J. A. Macdonald – it was a hoax, doubtless. He had no doubt that if a member forged another member’s name it might be regraded as a breach of privilege. Whenever a breach of privilege took place, the injured member could take such course as he thought proper; and when such was done, it would be exceedingly indecorous for the Government to remove the matter form the hands of the hon. gentleman who introduced it and was responsible therefor. If the Government were to make Government matters of all those little trifling concerns it would be doing something very unusual. Let the hon. member for Chateauguay find a case in which the English Government said to a member complaining of a breach of privilege – you must go no further in this matter; we will take it up.

Hon. J. S. Macdonald said the member for Chateauguay complained that in a matter of grace importances, the leader of the House went out instead of rising and expressing the views of the Government, and giving a tone to the House. If the man who did the improper act was not manly enough to acknowledge it, the hon. member for Iberville ought to give the name.

Hon. Mr. McDougall said it was due that the hon. gentleman should show some foundation for the suspicion that some member of the House was guilty of this act, which had been called a breach of confidence. He (Mr. M.) did not see how the privileges of this House were affected by this act. Even if some member did not commit a practical joke, or forgery, he did not see we had anything to do with in its present shape. It was the best compliment the Government could pay to the House to allow hon. gentlemen who introduced matters of this kind to deal with them themselves. Surely the hon. gentleman having brought the matter forward, and having regarded it as a breach of privilege, he must have considered that the course best for him to take and referred to be allowed to deal with the matter without interference.

Hon. Mr. Holton thought that after the statement made an challenge given by the hon. member for Cornwall, there remained nothing for the hon. member for Iberville to do but disclose the name of the member who had taken the improper liberties in question. (Opposition cheers). There was nothing left but that; because the course taken by the Government would leave him, perhaps, in the position of having apparently trifled with the House, if he failed to make his statement specific by disclosing the name. The signing of another’s name on a paper was not regarded by the law as a hoax. How were we to know what messages were being sent to the telegraph office in our names, on all sorts of questions? What hon. gentleman was safe if such liberties were to be taken with his mane, and if it was to be held by the guardians of the House that these things were innocent hoaxes only to be laughed at?

Hon. J. A. Macdonald said the hon. gentleman, it appeared, was going to be the tutor of the House in all matters social and moral, but not financial. He indulged in the “hifalutin” style, and charged him (the speaker) with the dereliction of duty, because he wet out to see the Law Clerk when the hon. member for Iberville was making his statement. He (Mr. M.) rather than thought he could go out when he pleased without being taken to task by him. He said the gravamen of this complaint was that the Government sat silent when the member for Lambton made a motion in relation to certain returns. That hon. member did not want the assistance of the hon. member for Chateauguay, or anybody else, in making his motions. If the Government had opposed any motion improperly, then the hon. gentleman would be justified in treating it in the manner he did. The member for Lambton made a motion in which the Government acceded, and there certainly could be no object in Ministers making speeches on motions to which they had agreed. The member for Iberville brought up this matter on his own responsibility, and he (Mr. M.) did not question or object to his conduct in so doing. The act was, doubtless, a foolish hoax; but he had seen such hoaxes played by friends of the hon. member for Chateauguay, at which he laughed as heartily as any one else. It was an unwarrantable thing, certainly, to use a member’s name, as was done on this occasion; but that the member for Chateauguay was to rise, in the absence of anything like a real grievance, and charge the Government with a grave dereliction of duty, because they did not stop every other business, and bring up by the neck some unknown culprit – it was not known whether to be hanged, drawn and quartered – was rather unreasonable. Would the hon. gentleman dictate what was to be done with this culprit, when caught? What would he suggest the Government should do? Did he want them to get up in his own solemn style, and say, in a severe manner – “this is a grave matter; the Government is guilty of a sad dereliction of duty, because the Attorney-General West wen out of the House while the member for Iberville was making his complaint; and the privileges of this House and the country, and our rights and liberties under the British constitution, are at stake, because that hon. member’s name is wrongly put to a petter telegram.” This is the style the hon. member for Chateauguay would like us to indulge in, but that was not our style. (Laughter.) If this matter came, however, to a motion, it would be found as in the case of the motion of the member for Lambton and others, that substantial justice would be done, and that the Government would maintain the privileges of the House, as well as the member for Chateauguay, although they might not make such a row about it. (Hear, hear, and laughter).

Hon. Mr. Huntington said he felt he could not join with his hon. friends from Chateauguay (Mr. Holton) in condemning the conduct of the Government in declining to take action in this matter. (Hear, hear). They might, in fact, be treading on each other’s toes. And again, doubtless, it was very desirable for them that all questions should be kept in abeyance until the great question of Confederation was settles. (Laughter.) He would, however, beg leave to differ with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. J. A. Macdonald) in the view that hon. gentleman had taken of the case under discussion. The “hoax” as it was called, might have consequences more serious than he seemed to imagine. Suppose, for instance, that the false report of the member for St. Hyacinthe having been unseated had reached St. Hyacinthe at the same time as the intelligence than hon. member of the House stood charged by the committee with gross corruption at the last election for that city. Who could tell what an excitement or commotion might have been excited? There might have been an organization of the people, an outbreak of civil war in fact. (Laughter.) He did not desire to east any imputation whatever on the Government, but he regretted exceedingly that the Hon. Attorney General West should have tried to make out a hoax out of what really might have been a very serious affair.

Col, Haultain said he did not agree with the honourable member of Chateauguay (Honorable Mr. Holton) in the strong censure that honorable gentleman had cast upon the Government, inasmuch as he really did not see how they could have acted in the matter. He regretted exceedingly, however, the light manner in which an action such as that now under consideration had been treated by the hon. leader of the House. He (Col. Haultain) considered the action complained of a most unwarrantable liberty which deserved to be stigmatized in the strongest terms. It could not be considered harmless, because great injury might have been done to the hon. member for Iberville (Mr. Dufresne) by connecting his name with a false report. He thought hon. member on both sides should units in condemning such an action; and he must again, in conclusion, express his regret that the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. J. A. Macdonald) had treated it so lightly (Hear, hear).

Mr. Rankin said that the real question was – who was the guilty party? He could not understand or appreciate the course of reasoning which some hon. members had pursued. What had the Government to do with the matter that they should be violently attacked and stigmatized? (Hear, hear.) Was it intended to be insinuated that members of the Government had anything to do with the act complained of? (Cries of “no, no.”) Was it pretended that hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches had advised or counselled the sending of this bogus despatch?

Hon. Mr. McGee – by [sic] in Council. – (Laughter.)

Mr. Rankin – What are members of the Government expected to do? (Hear, Hear.)

An Hon. Member – They are the leaders of the House.

Mr. Rankin looked upon the act under discussion as a joke – an unwarrantable liberty perhaps, but after all a joke and no more. (Hear, hear.) The Government did not pretend to approve of it, nor did it appear to be alleged that it was, even in the remotest way, chargeable upon them. All hon. gentlemen seemed to do was to blame them because they did not put-on wry faces and say – “God bless us, this state of things is quite disgraceful.” (Hear, Hear, and laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Laframboise contended that the author of the joke as it was called ought to have apologized. Ample opportunity had been afforded him of doing so. The hon. member for Iberville had made the matter known to hon. members yesterday, so that the perpetrator might know of his intention of bringing it up before the House and have time to apologize. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Cartwright suggested that the proper way to do would be to bring the culprit to the bar of the House, and let him be solemnly lectured and admonished by Mr. Speaker –

Hon. Mr. McGee – No, no – by the hon. member for Chateauguay. (Laughter.)

Mr. Cartwright – The culprit should be admonished by Mr. Speaker not to forget the address next time. The Essex election case afforded an excellent precedent for such an admonition. (Hear, hear).

Mr. Dunkin was understood to [sic] the tone in which the matter had been discussed, and to urge that the guilty party should acknowledge that he had acted improperly.

Mr. Bown thought that this was a case between two gentlemen which could be settled between themselves without reference to the House. (Hear, hear). If, however, it was a grace crime to send a false messages, what would be said of those who received false messages. (Hear, hear.) He had experiences, during his election, of parties receiving unfounded telegrams to the effect that such and such offices were vacant. What would be thought of those who received such messages? (Hear, hear.)

Mr. A. Dufresne said that he had no objection whatever to give the name of the hon. member to whom he referred. (Hear, hear.) He had not done so at first, in order that an opportunity might be afforded to that hon. gentleman. He had even deferred mentioning the matter until to-day, with that object in view, and he had contented himself with speaking about it to a few friends, so that the hon. gentleman whose name had been mentioned to him in connexion with it might have a chance of offering an explanation. No such offer had been made, however, and he would, therefore, name the hon. member. According to the information he had received, it was the hon. member for Beauharbois (Mr. Dennis) who had handed the telegraphic message in question to a Mr. Robitaille in the presence of two other messengers. (Hear, hear, and “oh, oh.”)

Mr. Denis said that the hon. member for Iberville (Mr. Dufresne) had a particular facility for making a little political capital out of personal matters. Last session he had managed to get such an opportunity, out of his difficulty with the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Cauchon), and now he sought in the most unworthy manner to tarnish the name, and raise up imputations against the personal character of the youngest member of the House. (hear, hear). The hon. member made a great outery about an alleged forgery, and then assumed a mild and forgiving tone, and said that the had delayed mentioning this matter in order to afford the person whom he had been informed was guilty of the attempt to cause this message to be sent, an opportunity of apologizing. Was the conduct of the hon. member in keeping with his professions? Nothing of the kind; the hon. member met him (Mr. Denis) – whom he now accused in connexion with this matter – time and again in the comite de la pipe and elsewhere; he met him in the usual manner, with a smile on his lips, and never said a word about the accusation he now made so flippantly. (Hear, hear.) But the hon. member had hatred and rancor in his heart, and was all the time concocting the charge which he had now brought to an issue. The hon. gentleman made a great deal of noise about a proceeding which he well knew was in reality a harmless farce. (Hear, hear,) The accuser was followed by the hon. member for Chateauguay, who assumed his most indignant air, and brought his loudest tones to aid him in denouncing what he styled abominable and outrageous conduct; and next came the hon. member for Cornwall *Mr. J. S. Macdonald), forsooth who, more than all others should have abstained from lecturing hon members on propriety, well, now, in answer to this charge, he desired to say, and he was sure his denial would be accepted, to say the least, quite as readily as the accusation of the hon. member for Iberville, – that he never signed such a telegram, and that to make this charge on the evidence of the servants of the House was unworthy and disgraceful in the extreme. He denied having used the hon. member’s signature – he had never used it. He had no desire to use it and would never do so. (Hear, hear and cheers).

Hon. Mr. Laframboise would like to know from the hon. member who sat beside the hon. member for Beauharbois (Mr. Denis), whether it was not true that the knew yesterday afternoon that this charge was pending and would be brought up. Under these circumstances, he ought certainly to have made it his duty to come up and deny or explain the matter. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. A. Dufresne said he did not like to have his name used improperly, and in an unauthorized manner. He had arisen for the purpose of vindicating himself, and he thought the House would appreciate his conduct in doing so. The hon. gentleman denied that the had signed the false telegram. Well, he (Mr. Dufresne) did not charge him with having signed it. But if he was not guilty of sending it, let him exculpate himself – let him deny it. (Hear, hear).

Mr. Denis – I am quite ready to do so. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. A. Dufresne – The hon. gentleman was charged with handling it to the messenger. Let him say whom he got it from.

Hon. J. S. Macdonald (who was indistinctly heard in the gallery) was understood to say that the person who uttered a forged document was quite as guilty as the forger. Was he to understand that the hon. member for Beauhornais denied having had anything to do with the message? (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Denis – (amid some confusion, and cries of “question”) – I deny having signed the hon. gentleman’s name,

Hon. J. S. Macdonald – Am I to understand that the hon. gentleman denies –

Mr. Denis – I never signed the hon. gentleman’ name, and never intend to do so. (Hear, hear.)

Hon. J. S. Macdonald – does the hon. gentleman mean to say he never delivered the message?

Mr. Denis – I never did that. (Hear, hear and cheers.)

Hon. J. S. Macdonald said that of course after the hon. gentleman’s denial, we were bound to exonerate him. At the same time he held that the matter was altogether of too serious a nature to allow it to drop. It should be traced up.

Mr. Bellerose, who spoke at some length, said it was most ridiculous to hear the hon. member for Cornwall lecturing hon. members upon propriety.

Mr. Dufresne moved for a special committee to enquire into the attempt to despatch the bogus telegram in his (Mr. Dufresne’s) name – said committee to consist of Messrs. Laframbroise, Paquet, Labreeche-Viger, Houltain, A. Mackenzie, and the mover.

Hon. Mr. Cartier – No, no, not that committee.

Hon. J. A. Macdonald was understood to say that there was no objection to granting the committee, but it should be otherwise arrainged.

Some further remarks were made by Messrs. Bellerose and Macfarlane, but they were inaudible in the gallery.

Finally, the motion was read by the Speaker, with the constitution of the proposed committee altered to the following: Messrs. Laframbroise, Jos. Dufresne, Blanchet, Rose, and the mover.

Mr. A. Dufresne – I shall stick to my motion. (Hear, hear)

After some further parley, Mr. A. Dufresne’s name was withdrawn from the committee, at his own request, and that of Mr. Paquet substituted.

Mr. Jackson denounced the whole affair as a trumpery matter, which should not have occupied the attention of the House. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was then put to the vote, and the result was a “tie” – Yeas 44. Nays 44. The announcement was [sic] with cheers and laughter.

An Hon. Member – The member for Toronto (Mr. Smith) has not voted.

Mr. A. M. Smith said that although he had been in the House at the time the question was put he had not been present during the discussion and would prefer not to vote (Cries of “no, no” “yes” and “Let him be excused”.)

Several Hon. Members – Let the hon. member vote.

Mr. A. M. Smith being pressed to vote declared he would vote “yea”

An Hon. Member – The hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Denis) has not voted. (Hear, hear).

Mr. Denis – I should like to be excused from voting.

An Hon. Member – the hon. member for Iberville (Mr. A. Dufresne) has voted.

Mr. Denis – Under these circumstances, as the hon. member for Iberville has voted, I shall also vote – I vote “nay”

The Clerk announced the result of the division list – still a “tie” – yeas 45, nays 45.

Mr. Pope – I think I heard the name of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Irvine) read on both sides. (Laughter)

Mr. Irvine – I feel quite certain I only voted on one side (Hear, hear.)

Hon. Mr. McGee (pointing at the last speaker) – I am sure any person looking at my hon. friend from Megantic will at once admit that he is read (red) on both sides. (Roars of laughter.)

The Speaker voted nay and the motion was lost – thus rejecting the motion for the Committee of Enquiry.

Mr. F. Jones (North Leeds) – Do the Hon. Attorneys-General East and West expect the House to resign after this defeat. (Laughter.)

Hon. J. A. Macdonald – The House will do nothing of the kind. (Hear, hear.)

Quebec Fire Loan and Government Seigniories

Hon. Mr. Galt gave notice that he would on Tuesday next move that the House do then go into Committee of the Whole to consider of certain resolutions which he will then submit respecting the Quebec Fire Loan and the Government seigniories.

Civil Code of Lower Canada

On the order being called for the third reading of the bill intituled “An Act respecting the Civil Code of Lower Canada,”

Hon. Mr. Cartier moved the amendments to which he had consented in Committee of the Whole on Thursday evening.

The amendments were made without any general discussion.

Hon. Mr. Cartier moved that the bill do pass and that the title be as in the motion. – Carried. (Cheers.)

Bills from the Upper House

A number of bills from the Upper House were advanced a stage.

It being six o’clock, the Speaker left the Chair.

After the recess-

The Speaker took the Chair at eight o’clock.

House in Committee of Supply

On the order being called for the House again to go into Committee of Supply, and His Excellency’s Message of 21st ult, with estimates for the year ending 30th June, 1866, referred

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] said he proposed to pass in review the principal points connected with the budget speech of the Hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt]. Although marked by all the ability, lucidity of statement, and facility of dictation which usually characterised the financial statements of that hon. gentleman, his speech, when stripped of its external trappings, and regarded in its substance, was a preeminently unsatisfactory statement; one which would be disappointing to the country, as he (Mr. Holton) was sure it must be to the House. It was unsatisfactory in two aspects; unsatisfactory because of the large deficit it manifested; and still more unsatisfactory because it failed to suggest any remedy either for the past deficit, or to guard against the recurrence of such deficits.

The hon. gentleman asked us to trust him; but he (Mr. H.) took it for granted he did not seriously urge his resolution of imposing new tamp duties as a remedy for the present unfavorable financial condition. He asked us equally to trust in his judgement when he told us the existing scheme of taxation would be found adequate to meet the wants of the country. Now, when an hon. gentleman threw himself on the trust and confidence of the country, it became necessary to enquire the grounds upon which that confidence reposed—confidence in him as the Finance Minister of the country [Alexander Galt].

He (Mr. H.) proposed, with that view to glance hastily at the history of the present Finance Minister’s [Alexander Galt] administration of the finances of the country since 1858. In that year out finances, under the administration of the two hon. gentlemen, still the leaders of the Government, had reached a very deplorable condition; and it would be admitted, probably, by those hon. gentlemen that among their political adherents no one was to be found of adequate reputation for financial ability to undertake the somewhat arduous task of restoring the finances then in such difficulty and embarrassment. They made overtures to the hon. member for Sherbrooke [Alexander Galt], then among their political opponents, which led to his joining their Government.

He (Mr. H.) would not impute to him any other than the most patriotic motives for his course on that occasion. He merely referred to this matter to show the great expectations formed of him at that time, arising out of the dilapidated condition of the finances brought about by the hon. members now at the head of the Government. Well, he took office in 1858, having then six months before him wherein to mature his plans and submit measures for recuperating the finances of the country. He submitted a tariff in 1859, which was protective. He would not argue the question of protraction and free trade; but it would be admitted that to the precise extent to which a tariff accomplished its purpose of protection, was it destructive of the revenue of the country. We could not produce the article at home and buy it abroad at the same time.

The tariff, therefore, from its very nature was not calculated to produce the amount of revenue required to meet the financial wants of the country at that time. But the hon. gentleman took a different view of the ease. He thought that his tariff, while protecting the domestic manufactures of the country, would produce, in 1859, so large a revenue that he could adopt a diminishing scale of duties upon the leading imports, tea and sugar. Well, that tariff did not restore the finances of the country or produce a revenue adequate to the expenditure upon the scale pitched by the Hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] himself. Next came 1860, without bringing any proposition to change the tariff of 1859. It only brought the great consolidation scheme of that hon. gentleman.

He (Mr. H.) remembered the ferocity with which the present President of the Council [George Brown] denounced that scheme, which had its meritorious features; under the guise of consolidating our debt and meeting out difficulties, it provided for a new loan which served to tide over the financial difficulties of the hon. gentleman for nearly two years. Then, 1861 came, and no proposition was made to disturb the trade of 1859; 1862 next came, when we were treated to a remarkable speech; for it abounded in distinct propositions to meet the difficulties that beset the hon. gentleman. The leading propositions of that speech were a recurrence—first to the free trade policy, as contradistinguished from the protective policy, and the reimposition of those duties on articles of necessary consumption, which he had proposed to take off by his diminishing scale of 1859.

He (Mr. H.) was inclined to agree with him in the latter change; but he thought that this complete revolution in the theory as well as the practice of the hon. gentleman, in such a short time, would hardly be admitted as a ground for trust in his sagacity or success in matters of finance. The budget of 1862 was remarkable in another respect. We had had all our difficulties for the last two or three years imputed to the American war. There could be no doubt it had a very prejudicial effect on our industry. But the Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] did not think, in 1862, that this would be the result. He then ventured to predict that, instead of injuring our trade, the war would lead to a very considerable increase of our revenue.

Though he (Mr. H.) thought that the economical features of the budget of 1862 were, in the main, sounds, yet from the moment he left solid ground, and travelled into the ground of prophecy, we saw how far he went astray. We say that the very cause of all his difficulties now were then believed by him to be the certain causes of an era of the greatest financial prosperity the country ever knew. In 1862 he left office beaten, apparently on the Militia Act, but, in reality on his financial management and budget. Well, the hon. gentleman came back to office in 1864.

His own blue-book, submitted last session, disclosed the fact that the short financial year, ending 30th June, 1864, during only two months of which the present Hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] was in office, there was, for the present time, in some years a small surplus of revenue over expenditure. Well, in 1864, the hon. gentleman proposed imposing additional taxation to an extent which, in his judgement would be found adequate, not only to establish an equilibrium between the income and the expenditure, but to create an ample surplus to meet any unforeseen contingency that might arise during the year.

He would now review the policy of that budget speech of 1864, with the results of the financial movements of the year closing on the 30th of June as disclosed in the papers laid before the House before the speech of the Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] the other night. The hon. gentleman estimated that, in the Customs, there would be an increase in the approaching fiscal year, beginning with the 1st of July, over the corresponding period, terminating with the 30th of June, 1864, of $200,000; and he estimated the change he then proposed in the Customs would produce a further increase of $67,000—making an aggregate increase of $267,000. Now, what was the actual result? He found, by the statement laid upon our table, that there was collected, of Customs’ duties, for the year ending 30th June, 1864, $6,081,000; and for the year ending 30th June 1865,, it was $5,661,184—making a deficit in the latter year, as compared with the former, of $327,720. The error in the calculation made by the Hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] was, in the item of Customs alone, $587,000.

Then we came to the Excise. He estimated the increased revenue from increased duties on spirits and tabaco, would be one million and sixty thousand dollars. He found the full receipts from Excise for the year ending 30th June, 1864, amount to $1,183,790, while the total receipts for the year 1863, under the old system of Excise reached $829,801. So instead of one million and sixty thousand dollars, as predicted, we had an increase from the additional taxation of Excise of $353,984.

He (Mr. Holton) did not go into the minor branches of revenue. With the solitary exception of the territorial revenue, which shewed an increase from exceptional causes, there would be found to be a falling off in every branch of the minor revenues. Then, he would proceed to state the hon. gentleman’s calculations as disclosed in his speech of 1864. On that occasion, he estimated the total receipts at $11,863,000, and the total expenditure at $11,686,000, which showed an estimated surplus of $187,000. After providing for the estimated redemption in connexion with the public debt, including $264,000 of debentures, he would still have a surplus of $177,000.

Then, with regard to the expenditure, he (Mr. Holton) would remark that in the very important case of expenditure, the statement submitted to the House would show a very large excess—not only over the expenditure of 1863, and early part of 1864, but over the estimates of the hon. gentleman, as stated in his budget speech of May, 1864. He now desired to offer a few observations on that part of the Hon. Finance Minister’s [Alexander Galt] speech, respecting the important subject of the Reciprocity Treaty.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—It appeared to him (Mr. Holton) did not fail to admire the general tone of his remarks, and general drift of his arguments on that subject. He agreed with him that we might make too much of this question of Reciprocity, and that it might be unbecoming in us to do so. He believed that the country could not only live, but thrive, without the Reciprocity Treaty. While he said that he did not undervalue the importance of the Treaty, which was clearly advantageous to both countries; that being the case; he did not despair of obtaining its renewal.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—Neither do I.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—said that the whole drift of the hon. gentleman’s argument the other night was to show the improbability of its being renewed. He hoped it would be renewed on account of the great advantage to both countries. He was quite sure the hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] desired its renewal as well as he did; but he was also sure that none in the House were desirous of making any sacrifices or improper concessions, unworthy of ourselves and our independent position, in order to secure that Treaty.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—But he might venture to think that hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches had failed in their duty, in not brining the matter forward ad asking the American Government whether they would enter upon the negotiation; for its renewal or not. The signs twelve months before that the notice for the abrogation of the Treaty would probably be given, and that Congress might take action upon it. It was the duty then of the Government to have brought this question to a distinct issue with the Americans

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—That step should have been taken at an early stage. His fear was that while these gentlemen were pursuing phantoms, looking after “new nationalities,” and the great scheme of Confederation, this pressing practical question was neglected. He believed, as already stated, that we could get along without the Reciprocity Treaty, but if we were not to have it the sooner we knew it the better.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—He had no doubt that serious revolutions would occur in certain branches of the trade, if this treaty be brought to a sudden to a sudden termination. Looking forward, therefore, to the time when it might be abrogated, considering the signs of the times which pointed to the probably action of the Americans in this direction, he maintained that it was the duty of the hon. gentleman, at the earliest possible moment, to have brought the question of the reopening of the negotiations with the Americans to a practical test, in order that the longest possible notice might have been given to people in trade to prepare themselves for the change to ensue. He repeated it was to be deplored that those who had charge of the material interests of the country had failed to ascertain whether the negotiations would be renewed, instead of looking after vague constitutional changes

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—He now proposed to discuss briefly the policy of the canal enlargement, and to indicate his dissent from the Hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt], that the enlargement of the canals should be contingent upon the renewal of the Reciprocity Treaty. He believed that the policy of enlarging the canals, if entered upon would play an important part, in securing to us, the renewal of the Treaty in question. He maintained that sound policy required that we should cultivate the Western trade irrespective of the Reciprocity Treaty. There was no Reciprocity Treaty when these canals were constructed, and it was not with a view of the Treaty being agreed to that they were constructed, but with the object of securing the transit trade of the West; and that trade we did secure to a very considerable extent, and could secure to a still larger extent, quite irrespective of any Reciprocity agreement.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—He thought that what the country wanted most urgently, at the present moment, was good economical government—one that looked to the judicious development of the great natural resources of the country. There was no need of great constitutional changes.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—He believed we had a constitution that had produced most satisfactory results. It was not perfect any more than the British constitution and required amendment perhaps. He considered our present want was a good and practical government under our present constitution which, he maintained, with all its faults, was infinitely superior to the abortion framed at the Quebec Conference.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear, “oh, oh” and cheers.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—It was a sort of hybrid between federal republicanism and British colonial toryism.

Some Hon. MembersCheers and laughter.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—It was a thing that had no parallel in our history, and was truly hostile to the spirit of the British constitution, without securing the advantages of the American system of federation.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—This constituted in the main objection to the scheme; but, whatever its merits, we ought not to let all our other great practical questions wait upon the attainment of that measure. The hon. gentleman might, indeed, say that the measure was remote, and he (Mr. Holton) believed it would take many years to carry it; and we might loose, as we were doing now, golden opportunities of bettering the position of our country if we continued the system that the hon. gentlemen had entered upon this session of postponing every measure till the accomplishment of Confederation.

Some Hon. MembersCheers.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] said he scarcely thought the House would expect him to reply at great length to the remarks the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holton), in the nature of a critique, on his conduct as Finance Minister during the time he had held office. But he thought that the hon. gentleman, in referring to his past conduct as Finance Minister might have drawn a little more attention to some of the difficulties it was his lot to encounter.

He might have referred to the fact that he (Mr. Galt) had to deal with the deficit of three and a half million dollars in 1858, and that the Municipal Loan Fund and railway guarantee claims had all matured then—that in 1857 we had a deficient harvest and in 1853 almost a total failure of the harvest. We were then sustaining also, from the sudden stoppage of the public works, which had raised a sort of hectic prosperity in the country, and which, coincidently with the failures of the crops, brought about an entire depression and cessation of public outlay. He thought he might refer, with some degree of satisfaction, to the policy pursued by the Government of which he had the honor to be a member. He contended that that policy had been eminently successful. It was perfectly true that we were unable to overcome at once, under circumstances to which he had alluded, the great increase of the public burthens; and it was deliberately stated that it was felt that if the Government had come down with sufficient taxation at once to meet all these engagements that the depression existing in the country would have been seriously augmented.

Therefore we believed, and he thought correctly, that the country required time to recover from the depression under which it suffered, and that it was better to use its credit, which, owing to prompt payments, was good in the foreign market, to obtain means to meet our present necessities, and thereby tide over the difficulty. He had no hesitation in saying that was the policy of the Government, and that it was a sound one. Speaking at this moment, he would say that it would have been a most unwise thing in the Government to have come down and laid on heavy taxation on the country when suffering from depression of every kind. What was the result of the policy pursued? What was thought but that we estimated our securities and credit at their proper value; for though under the adverse circumstances in which we were placed we were enabled to borrow money cheaper than ever before, and change the rate of interest on more than half the amount of our debt from six to five per cent

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—And how was it done? Because we maintained the credit and good faith of the country, and he believed at this moment that the Province was greatly indebted to the Government for having carried out that arrangement. The hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] objected to the tariff of 1859; and at the same moment said it produced the effect expected. He said it was intended to give a certain amount of protection to our manufacturers, and that, so far as it served that purpose, it affected the revenue. Granted—was it not an advantage to the country to have manufacturers turning out goods here instead of having to import them from abroad.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Why not continue it, and why propose to reverse it?

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] said he proposed to come to the tariff of 1862. The tariff of 1859, so far as he was aware, was not greatly changed, except with regard to groceries. Most of the duties on goods had been imposed the previous year by the Hon. Mr. Cayley, and not by him (Mr. Galt). The only articles at 20 per cent. were cotton goods and some articles of hardware. The hon. gentleman had spoken of the effect of the sliding scale on groceries. We were enabled to submit to the gradual dimensions of the duty, the revenue being able to bear the loss at the time—the American war having then broken out. This war threw open to us means we did not possess before, and the Government in 1864 was in a position to avail itself of these means to meet the difficulties of its condition. We were aware we were going to have an increase of our expenditure for militia, and considered from the state of the country that we were justified in putting larger duties on spirits and tobacco.

The hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Holton) had said that the defeat of the Ministry in 1862 was not upon the Militia Bill, but upon the question of financial management. Well, that was news to him (Mr. Galt) as he had always supposed, as well as every body else, that the Government were defeated on their militia policy, and he thought the hon. gentlemen who voted against them on that question would scarcely thank the hon. member for saying that it was on a different question altogether they had given their vote. Every one was aware that the bill for the reorganization of the militia really did provoke a great deal of hostile criticism. The bill was not understood, but he (Mr. Galt) was convinced to this moment it was the best measure that could have been proposed. He considered it was a great loss to the country that the bill did not pass.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—He did not mean that it was a loss as regard the defeat of the Ministry; but that it was a loss that the country had suffered from evident from the character of their successors

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—The hon. Postmaster-General followed you.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear, and laughter.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] said that he believed the Hon. Postmaster-General did vote against the Government on that occasion, and no doubt he acted conscientiously. It was very probably the hon. gentleman would have opposed the general policy of the Government—Militia Bill as well as everything else, including financial questions.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear, and laughter.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—As to the statement of the hon. gentleman, that the finances were so very bad in 1862, when he (Mr. Galt) left office, it was, to say the least, extraordinary. The hon. gentleman added that, in 1864, for the first time in the history of the country, there was a surplus. He (Mr. Holton) then possessed all the advantages of being Finance Minister; and if he (Mr. Galt) remembered rightly, he told us quite different in his speech. Then he had no idea of a surplus, but told us we were on the eve of a financial crisis.

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—That was the year before

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] said he recollected very distinctly the most interesting speech of the hon. gentleman on that occasion. It was rather an essay than a speech, in which he laid down general principles, but never carried them out; and he certainly left office without leaving us under the impression that he had a surplus.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—When he reflected on the way he told us that the country was in a kind of crisis, how could he deliberately say that when he left office there was a surplus, and no political difficulties. Was it not really surprising?

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—You did not think a few months’ good management could have done so much.

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—What a pity the honorable gentleman left office. He went out, but he was so very anxious the country should have a good Government that he not only went out himself but took all his colleagues along with him.

Some Hon. MembersRenewed laughter.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—He had just said that the country wanted good government; and he (Mr. Galt) dared say the hon. gentleman was under that impression a year and a half ago when he resigned, and in doing so he gave effect to his belief. No doubt the country appreciated the change.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—No doubt the country was beginning to think it had got good government. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Holton) in making his statement on finance, while in office, said it was quite obvious that an extraordinary load would have to be resorted to, and that at the earliest possible moment, to meet the deficit and underfunded debt.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—This statement was made in September 1863, but the hon. gentleman never made another financial statement—but no, it was in reality the Hon. Postmaster-General [Oliver Mowat] who made it. The then Finance Minister, however, at least brought down one item of his own—fifteen hundred dollars for the Caughnawaga Road.

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—The hon. gentleman now proceeded to read a portion of the speech delivered by honorable member for Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. Holton) while Finance Minister, setting forth the “necessity of a loan to bridge over the time to elapse before any extra taxation could be resorted to, it being too late to enter upon any new taxation this year,” going on to say that he maintained “we were not in a position to borrow money, however, till we declared our fixed purpose, to provide for our increased expenditure by increased taxation.” That was the only remedy proposed for the state of affairs. The hon. gentleman then said “he had no magical plan of getting money except by the old way of increasing the taxation.”

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—He, however, never tired to meet the difficulty, or bring down the scheme for increased taxation.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear, and laughter.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—He (Mr. Holton) argues that he must look at the question of direct taxation he hinted at. How was it to have been done, though?

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—By localizing our burthens.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] read another extract from Hon. Mr. Holton’s speech in 1863 to the effect that so strongly was he impressed with the necessity of meeting the financial difficulties of the country, that should he be obliged to retire from office he would “do all he could to strengthen the hands of his successor, in taking these measures necessary to place our finances in a proper condition.”

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—Now, we saw the kind of assistance his successor had experienced from him, and no doubt a little more of it would have been very bad indeed.

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—The hon. gentleman read another portion of the speech in which the hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] promised to bring down his budget immediately after Easter—that, however, was the last ever we had heard of it; and he (Mr. Galt) might say that the pledge he had given of assisting his successor was very widely deviated from.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Did I not give you all the assistance I possibly could, in imposing additional duties at the earliest possible moment, which you said were necessary in order to save the credit of the country? Did I not vote for giving the new taxes instantaneous effort? I think in this I redeemed my pledge amply.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] said he quite agreed that the hon. gentleman had given his assistance towards the early enforcement of the new duties; but his course otherwise had not been of a nature to support his successor in maintaining the credit of the country. Instead of endeavoring to maintain its credit, his course since quitting office had been to depreciate its credit. He (Mr. Galt) had taken a more cheerful view of affairs, and always believed that the resources of the country were so great that any little misfortune we might have to submit to were not sufficient to justify gloomy anticipations with regard to the country’s future.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear, and cheers.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—The hon. member’s (Mr. Holton) estimate was wrong in this particular,—he considered that the estimate for the Customs’ duties was made from the 1st July to the 30th June, whereas he might have seen that the estimate of $200,000 was estimated on the actual year previous. If he (Mr. Galt) recollected correctly, the receipts for 1862 were $5,160,000, and he added to this $200,000. To correct the hon. gentleman’s statement of his estimate, the Hon. Finance Minister proceeded to read the figures of his own statement, giving estimated increase under the new duties at $200,000 for the whole year—this estimate being based on the probability of a good harvest. Instead of the sum being less than he expected, he had derived $200,000 more. He did not estimate the increase from the excise at upwards of one million as was stated, but he estimated from all those sources of revenue that we should get $629,000. That was, however, subjected by the subsequent action of the House to serious reduction.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Your increase on tobacco alone was estimated at $629,000, and on spirits at $1,060,000.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] said these were not the figures quoted in the report of the speech before him. The estimate of consumption of spirits was 3,600,000 gallons, but it was reduced to 3,200,000 gallons for the purposes of the estimate.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—My point, is your estimates are all wrong.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—In this case, if wrong they are wrong on the safe side. If the estimates of revenue were wrong now it was because they were too low, and if that was the case he thought they could take care of any surplus they might get. The Hon. gentleman then referred to the course the Government had taken on the Reciprocity Treaty, but the only charge he brought against us was that we did not put a categorical question to the American Government, as to whether they would or would not renew the treaty.

He (Mr. Galt) thought it was not expedient to discuss the course the Government might take in a matter of so much importance and which was now in the hands of the Imperial Minister at Washington. He (Mr. Galt) was not at liberty to state what course the Government had taken, or the reasons that induced them to take their present course. It was not in the interest of the country that we should state what had governed our opinion on that question. Therefore, we were obligated to rest our case on that ground, relying on the confidence the House chose to repose in us, that we would do the best in our power to have the treaty renewed with the United States.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—He did not think that, unless there were reasons to suppose that the answer would be favorable, any advantage would arise from forcing the American Government to give an answer. The country had received all the warning necessary as to abrogation, and it would be prepared for any change in the direction of that portion of our trade. The Americans thought we derived the larger share of advantage under the Treaty, and we could not of course compel them to change their minds. We could, however, join in negotiating a new treaty, but going with our hat in our hand and begging them to do so was not the course we should adopt. If we could obtain it in the usual and honorable way, we should of course do so, but we ought not to make any unworthy concessions towards the country.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear, and cheers.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—As to the canal enlargement question, he would not repeat what he had already said.—The hon. gentleman (Mr. Holton) had stated that no Reciprocity Treaty existed when the canals were built but he forgot to state that the differential corn-law existed by which we were permitted to grind American corn into flour, and had the prospect of an immense trade through the manufacture of American wheat, and sending it to Great Britain. The famine in Ireland, however, and the failure in the crops, which led to the repeal of the Corn Law, did away with the duties in question, and from this cause the Province had suffered considerably.

Some Hon. MembersThe hon. gentleman sat down amid loud applause.

The House then went into Committee of Supply.

Mr. Street in the Chair.

The following items passed through Committee without discussion :-

Governor General’s Secretary’s office……………………………………………………………………. $ 1,976

Provincial Secretary…………………………………………………………………. 12,266

Registrar’s …………………………………………………………………… 4,915

Receiver General’s…………………………………………………………………….12,185

Finance Department……………………………………………………………………. 12,100

Customs’ Branch………………………………………………………………………. 14,330

Audit Branch……………………………………………………………………… 10,370

Executive Council Office………………………………………………………………………. 8, 950

Public Works Department………………………………………………………………………… 12, 217

Engineering Branch…………………………………………………………………………. 8,792

Bureau of Agriculture…………………………………………………………………………… 12, 475

Post Office Department…………………………………………………………………………… 24,240

On the item for the Crown Lands Department a very lengthy discussion arose in Committee on the subject of Department or Civil Service reform. The working of the Civil Service Act was debated, and there seemed to be a general impression that something should be done without delay for a thorough revision of the system. Finally, the item was carried.

Crown Lands Department……………………………………………………………………………… $52,686

Indian Management Branch………………………………………………………………………………6, 620

Office of Attorney and Solicitor General

“East………………………………………………………………………………… 2, 410

“                                   “      West” ………… 4,838

Contingencies…………………………………………………………………………………. 60,000

Arrears of Salaries Governor General’s Secretary’s office……………………………………………………………………………………. 154

Administration of Justice, L.C.……………………………………………………………………………………. 170,000

U.C.……………………………………………………………………………………… 37,910

River Police, Quebec……………………………………………………………………………………… 11,000

Montreal………………………………………………………………………………………. 11,000

Provincial Penitentiary…………………………………………………………………………………… 107,400

“                                            “     building materials …………………. 8,500

Rockwood Asylum:

Building materials           ………………………………………………………………………………………. 5,650

Salaries                         ………………………………………………………………………………………. 7,490

Heating and lighting                 ………………………………………………………………………………………. 20,400

Maintenance                            ………………………………………………………………………………………. 16,000

Penetanguishene Reformatory:

Maintenance                            ………………………………………………………………………………………. 20,500

New buildings                          ………………………………………………………………………………………. 11,650

St. Vincent de Paul Reformatory:

Maintenance                            ……………………………………………………………………………………… 24,550

To replace stores destroyed       ………………………………………………………………………………………. 7, 530

Inspection of Prisons, &c.          ………………………………………………………………………………………. 11,000

Legislative Council:

Salaries and expenses (two sessions) ………………………………………………………………………………. 63, 126

Legislative Assembly:

Salaries, &c. (two sessions)       ……………………………………………………………………………………. 244,280

Miscellaneous:

Printing laws, &c.            ……………………………………………………………………………………… 35,000

Distributing                    ……………………………………………………………………………………… 4,000

Printing Civil Code           ………………………………………………………………………………………. 10,009

Parliamentary Library               ………………………………………………………………………………………. 4,000

Clerk of the Crown          ………………………………………………………………………………………. 1,280

Contingencies, &c.          ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 600

The items of the educational grant were, after some discussion, passed over for another day, as likely to involve debate .

The following items were adopted after some explanatory discussion on each:-

Quebec Observatory                          ……………………………………………………………………………………… $2,400

Toronto “                                ………………………………………………………………………………………. 4,800

Kingston “                               ……………………………………………………………………………………… 500

Isle-Jesus “                             ………………………………………………………………………………………. 500

Medical Faculty, McGill College            ………………………………………………………………………………………. 750

“        “        Victoria College               ………………………………………………………………………………………. 750

School of Medicine, Montreal              ………………………………………………………………………………………. 750

“        “        Toronto                ……………………………………………………………………………………… 750

“        “        Kingston               ………………………………………………………………………………………. 750

Canadian Institute, Toronto                ………………………………………………………………………………………. 750

Montreal Natural History Society         ………………………………………………………………………………………. 750

Quebec Literary and Historical Society ………………………………………………………………………………………… 750

Ottawa Canadian Institute                  …………………………………………………………………………………………. 300

Ottawa Athenaeum                            …………………………………………………………………………………………. 300

Marine Hospital, Quebec           ………………………………………………………………………………………. 21,095

Prov. Lunatic [sic], Toronto                ……………………………………………………………………………………. 69, 530

Orillia Asylum

Maintenance                   ……………………………………………………………………………………… 14, 750

Additional, to meet liabilities      ………………………………………………………………………………………. 2,350

Maiden Lunatic Asylum                      ………………………………………………………………………………………. 27,600

St. John’s     do                        ………………………………………………………………………………………. 14,500

Beauport Asylum                      ………………………………………………………………………………………. 80,000

Do do arrears                          ………………………………………………………………………………………. 10,653

Shipwrecked Mariners                        ………………………………………………………………………………………… 600

Geological Survey                    ……………………………………………………………………………………… 20,000

Board of Arts and Manufactures ………………………………………………………………………………………. 8,000

Agricultural Society                           ………………………………………………………………………………………. 8,000

Emigration                              ………………………………………………………………………………………. 49,000

There was considerable discussion in Committee on a number of these items.

Finally, the Committee rose, reported progress and obtained leave to sit again.

Government Business.

Hon. J. A. Macdonald gave notice that he would move that there shall, form this period util the end of the session, be two distinct sittings of the House on Tuesday, Thursdays and Fridays.

The House then, at a quarter-past twelve, adjourned.

Leave a Reply