Document Information

Date: 1864-05-16
By: Province of Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Province of Canada, Parliament, Scrapbook Debates, 8th Parl, 2nd Sess, 1864 at 144-149.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MONDAY, May 16, 1864

 Debate on Hon. Mr. Dorion’s Motions

The first order of the day was for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance],

That the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House in Committee of Supply

—and the motion of the Antoine-Aimé Dorion [Hochelaga], in amendment thereto, condemning the policy of the Government on the canal tolls.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] said that on Friday last a motion was placed in the hands of the Speaker by the hon. member for Hochelaga [Antoine-Aimé Dorion], and at that time it was stated by the hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] that the Opposition proposed to discuss very fully the whole question as affected the Government. Of course they were quite ready to enter into the discussion of that portion of their policy affected by the resolution, or any other part of their policy. The motion bore the character of, and was intended as, a vote of want of confidence, and in this view it would be discussed generally. The hon. member for Hochelaga [Antoine-Aimé Dorion], on Friday night, sneered at what he was pleased to call the littleness of the financial budget proposed by the Government. In regard to its being little or big, all he (Mr. Galt) could say was, that if little, there was the less excuse for hon. gentlemen opposite not bringing down a budget themselves. But the budget of the Government appeared, notwithstanding, to have been approved by this House generally, and, he believed, by the country also; and if it be the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite thought the task was so simple and easy, they were wanting in their duty in permitting, while in office, so many months to elapse without bringing down some proposition having the same object in view. He thought that the very fact of hon. gentlemen opposite taking this line of argument pronounced the strongest possible condemnation of their own course. The hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] charged the present Ministerial party with being responsible for the previous Government’s failure to bring down any financial measures last autumn. Why, one of the motions of want of confidence brought forward against that Government was based on the precise reason that it had not submitted any financial measures whatever.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—How could they accuse gentlemen on this side of want of generosity in not supporting their financial measures, when they never afforded them an opportunity of hearing or supporting such measures. He (Mr. G.) believed the taunt was not called for: and, under the circumstances, he believed it was felt by this House, and would, no doubt, be felt from one end of the country to the other, that it was a taunt which it did not lie in the mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite to make against the Government.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—The member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] referred to the position in which financial affairs stood when he left office, a circumstance for which he claimed a good deal of credit. He (Mr. Galt) remembered when, not long ago, he occupied a similar position, on which occasion the hon. gentlemen opposite denied him any credit for the satisfactory position of the finances of the country, which they attributed to the prosperous state of its industry. If this theory were true, as relating to an Administration which had governed the country with measures which received the approval of the majority of Parliament, much stronger did it apply to those hon. gentlemen opposite, who, while in office, had not done anything to alter the existing legislation of the country. He would like to know what financial measures of the member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] had affected the revenue of the country in any way whatever. He had refused to bring down any measure of this description; and now, a very short time after this Government had assumed office, it had performed a duty on which that hon. gentleman had looked during the nine months he was in office without having had the courage to undertake. That hon. gentleman had denounced the Audit Bill as a sham of the grossest kind. How was it, if this were the case, that on the night of the introduction of the bill, he and other members on his side wished to claim the paternity of it.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—He (Mr. Galt) would say that if the hon. gentleman opposite had brought down such a bill, perhaps from their view of the case, they might have intended it to be a sham; but it did not become them, after admitting that the bill was a good and necessary one, to say that any act brought before the Legislature which was likely to be approved by it and the country, was a sham. He trusted that whatever Government might be in office, too much respect would be shown the wishes and desires of this House and the country, to induce any Government to depart from those “checks and guarantees” that were provided by the new Audit Bill.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—The hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] had commented upon his (Mr. Galt’s) speech at Sherbrooke. One thing in those comments did strike him as singular, and that was the defence the hon. gentleman offered for the circumstance of there being $200,000 if unprovided items. Without his (Mr. Galt’s) undertaking to make an analysis of the subject, one thing must strike the attention of the House—namely, that the estimates brought down by the ex-Finance Minister [Luther Holton], which did not make provision for that item of expenditure, were submitted in September, when the subject in regard to those items must have been perfectly well understood; and yet the House found that $92,000, for the collection of the revenue, was an item not sufficiently provided for. The member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] said it was not necessary to ask a vote for it. He (Mr. G.) pointed it out when he brought down the estimates for those deductions which are provided for by law, and also that, unless the hon. gentleman repealed the statute relating thereto, this deduction of revenue would have to be made, unless provision was otherwise made for it. He said this reduction of revenue ought not to have appeared in the unprovided items. But what he said in no way affected his position when he brought down the estimates. He brought down estimates for three months, $100,000 less than the actual result showed.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—What about the return duties?

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] said the hon. gentleman was perfectly well aware that all the drawbacks were paid before September, and that with regard to the return duties, that after this month they were comparatively small.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—We do not estimate for the return duties. They were included in that item, but were not expressed.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] observed that if every word of it were true as regards the hon. gentleman’s late department, it did not apply to the other departments. In one of his well-rounded periods, the hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] said, on Friday night, that if the late Government did nothing else, it arrested the swelling tide of financial profligacy, which had characterized previous Administrations. He (Mr. Galt) did not think anybody was before aware either that such a tide did exist, or that if so, they had arrested that terrible tide.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—Hon. members on this side had certain recollections which, in their view, was evidence that the last Administration was itself very profligate in this respect. He was unable to find that any such wonderful oversight or care was exercised by hon. members opposite when in office, to stop such tides. Indeed, the member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] was understood to say that a great deal more had been done by the hon. member for West York, (Hon. Mr. Howland) when in office, than by himself to improve the financial condition of the Province.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—You say it was the same Government, spite of the change of personnel.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—Does my hon. friend say it was the same Government?

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Ask the hon. member for Montreal West [Thomas D’Arcy McGee].

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] thought that the last Government gave the latter hon. gentleman very good reason for doubting it was the same as the preceding Government.

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

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—The member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] said that while it might be excusable to base the estimates for the first six months on the scale of previous expenditure, those for the following twelve months should have been accompanied by a plan of retrenchment. But if aware of any such plan, why did he not, while in office, bring it down himself. He (Mr. Galt) had found, on his accession to office, no plan of retrenchment, or else he should have been most happy, as far as in his power, to carry it out. That hon. gentleman left behind him no plan, and it was not believed he had any such plan devised. The hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] had talked of putting a stamp duty on transactions in real estate. He (Mr. Galt) believed that if that hon. gentleman had imposed stamp duties generally, while in the Government, that he would have found the measures both vexatious and unpopular. The truth was that real estate was already subjected to very heavy burdens connected with the general taxation of the country, which fact must be kept in view in imposing stamp duties. The motion in amendment before the House applied to the action which Government had taken with respect to reducing the canal tolls. Until 1860 the scale of tolls on the canals was, from time to time, varied by Orders in Council, and different scales were adopted at different times, having more or less relation to the rate of tolls levied on the Erie Canal, and, in order that the House might thoroughly understand the very small point attempted to be made by the hon. member for Hochelaga in regard to this matter, he (Mr. Galt) would state precisely what course was taken before 1869.—In the first place, in 1851, an Order in Council was passed, on the recommendation of Mr. Hincks, to the effect that a reduction should be made of one-fourth, and one-third on certain articles passing through the whole system of our canals. In 1853 another Order in Council was passed, in the same recommendation, in which it was stated that the effect of the previous partial remission of tolls on certain articles passing through the canals had worked so well that a second recommendation was deemed judicious. The latter set forth the belief that the object contemplated by the former regulations would be obtained to a greater extent by the exception of certain staple articles of trade from the payment of toll on passing through the other canals on having paid. In going through any particular one of them. The author of the recommendation, therefore, proposed that in lieu of a reduction of 25 or 30 per cent., as allowed in 1851, that a number of staple articles of commerce having paid toll through the St. Lawrence, should pass free through the Welland and vice versa. The House would observe, from the Order in Council of 1853, that at that time the policy of the Government was to give the benefit of exemption on iron and salt going through the canals upwards, and on wheat, flour and grain, passing down in the same way as at present, a condition of things which the present amendment would effect. It was very strange that the hon. member for Hochelaga [Antoine-Aimé Dorion] should only now wake up, in 1864, to the fact that the policy pursued since 1851, and still more strongly adopted in 1853, was a mistaken policy. How was it that the member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] had only discovered now, in 1864 that those exemptions were contrary to the public interest? How was it that the hon. member for South Oxford had also only discovered now that the regulations adopted this year were fraught with all manner of evil to the country? If those gentlemen were ignorant of the Act, was it creditable that they should go on for years legislating, absolutely ignorant of the state in which those tolls remained for years previous to 1864? If thus ignorant, it was strange those hon. members should rise here and complain of the reduction of those tolls being calculated to decrease the revenue to an extent necessary to demand taxation in a different direction. It was perfectly absurd on their part to do so.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—He (Mr. Galt) was certain the House knew how very little the revenue was affected by the toll paid by iron and salt.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—There was very little paid on them.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] did not, therefore, understand why the hon. gentleman should be alarmed at the remission of toll on those articles. In regard to wheat and flour, the course taken by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Howland), in reimposing canal tolls, caused great complaint throughout the country. He had made, practically, a very large increase in the tolls on produce coming down from Lake Erie to Montreal, and to that extent prejudicially affected our trade coming through the St. Lawrence, as hon. gentlemen opposite must admit. Great complaints had been urged at the time that the effect of this measure would be to direct the Western trade to Oswego and New York, instead of allowing it to take its natural course by the St. Lawrence. In this relation it was important to notice the movement of trade last year. By the Welland Canal, the amount of vegetable food, coming down from Lake Erie and surrounding country, for the first six months of this year was less than the amount of the first six months of the previous year by no less than 80,000 tons. In the case of the St. Lawrence Canal the thing was more marked. Up to the 1^st of September, 1863, the entries of produce passed through this canal, as compared with the previous year, was 71,000 tons less, and in the last part of 1863 was 76,000 tons less than in the corresponding period of the preceding year, this latter quantity amounting to one-half the trade in vegetable food passing through our canal. This showed the result of the re-imposition of the canal tolls. He would ask the hon. gentleman opposite how they could justify the putting on of largely increased tolls on the lumber trade, one of the most important interests of the country? He would show that they had enormously increased the burdens on this trade, while professing to reduce the burdens on the flour trade. This lumber trade was more particularly connected with the Ottawa and Rideau Canals. In the case of sawn lumber, the Government of hon. gentlemen opposite had increased the toll from 7 to 20 cents per 1,000 feet, board measure, and on sawn in rafts, the increase was 14 cents, the change in sawn logs being from 3 to 8 cents; and yet, they said

• (p. 146 in the primary document)

they imposed those rates in the interest of the producers of this country. The hon. gentlemen opposite must know very well that the doubling of the rate on lumber would kill this important interest. The policy of the Government, as attacked by the hon. member for Hochelaga [Antoine-Aimé Dorion], was that of restoring the exemptions. He (Mr. Galt) thought it was manifest that some re-adjustment must take place, and the Government intended to consider the matter before Parliament rose. With regard to the question of what would be lost on articles coming down the canals, particularly flour and grain, it was stated in the statistics of Montreal for the past year, that of grain was less than 37,000 bushels came down from September to the close of the year.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton]—There was none to send.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—If so, there could be no loss from remitting the tolls on this commodity.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Nothing to gain.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—Well, if so, what did the regulations apply to? It was to wheat and grain. He (Mr. Galt) had stated that, in no respect, did those regulations vary from the Order in Council passed by Mr. Hincks, with the support of many of the hon. gentlemen opposite, in 1853, and which remained in effect till the change took place, a few years ago. And did it lie in the mouths of hon. gentlemen who approved of the system established in 1853, with their approval, as judged by their silence, to come here and say that the Government was unworthy of confidence, because it went back to the old policy, and gave the trade those exemptions which it enjoyed several years under the Hincks Administration and others which succeeded it. This was the only point members opposite could attack the Government upon—the most salient point of their policy; and he wished them joy of what the country would think of their course. It was notorious that the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, on this question, was the cause of general complaint in the country, and had a most depressing effect on the most important branches of business in the country, and had done a great deal of harm in regard to the relations of this country towards the United States. Our canal tolls on the Welland and St. Lawrence Canals were paid in gold, while those of the Erie Canal were paid in American currency. Consequently, he (Mr. Galt) received, the day before yesterday, a communication from the Chicago Board of Trade, setting forth the fact that, though the Canadian tolls were now nominally less, they were really greater relatively to the American tolls than before, in consequence of the latter being paid in depreciated currency; submitting to the consideration of the Government the propriety of reducing the tolls on the Welland Canal; promising as their opinions that a small reduction of the Welland tolls would largely augment the volume of our trade through this canal. This point deserved the attention of the Government and would receive it. This communication went to prove that the policy which the Government announced was really the best to take for the purpose of increasing our carrying trade—namely, restoring the exemptions under which the trade was carried on for a number of years. He would reserve the points raised by this Board of Trade till the question of the re-adjustment of the canal tolls could be taken up. He had every confidence the present Government had taken the wisest course in regard to this matter, and that the House would sustain them therein in their endeavors to promote the best interests of the country.

Some Hon. Members—Loud cheers.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—There was a considerable pause before any hon. gentleman arose to speak. There were cries of “withdraw” and “lost on a division” from the Ministerial supporters, when, finally—

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] arose and proceeded to discuss the question from an Opposition point of view. He argued that the policy of removing the canal tolls was a boon to the foreign trader, but was injurious to the western farmer; and that freights were not in any way likely to be beneficially affected by such a policy.—The hon. gentleman cited a variety of statistics in support of his view of the case; and concluded his remarks on the subject by saying that he was prepared to offer every resistance in his power to a course which could only build up a few Montreal forwarders, while doing serious injury to the great producing country of the West, a portion of which he represented. There was another point to which, injustice to the hon. President of the Council (Mr. Buchanan), he (Mr. Mackenzie) would allude before he sat down. He (Mr. Mackenzie) understood from a Minister of the Crown that that hon. gentleman (Mr. Buchanan) had resolved not to accept any salary for his services as a Minister; and he mentioned this fact as a matter of justice to the President of the Council [Isaac Buchanan], inasmuch as he believed it was the first time it was publicly mentioned—no hon. gentleman on the other side of the House having thought fit to make it known.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Some Hon. Members—After another pause, with cries of “Question,” “Carried,” “Lost,” &c.—

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South] said he was sorry to see that the hon. President of the Council (Mr. Buchanan) was condemned to perpetual silence by his colleagues so that neither sneers nor compliments could induce him to speak. He (Mr. Rymal) would like to hear an exposition of the canal policy of the Government from the hon. President of the council, otherwise he would feel it his duty to vote against the Government. The hon. gentleman was very clear and lucid and eloquent in his explanations at Hamilton; why should he not favor the House with his views now?

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South]—He (Mr. Rymal) protested on behalf of the hon. President of the Council [Isaac Buchanan] against the treatment that hon. gentleman received at the hands of his colleagues.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South]—He looked upon this as another most glaring and unjustifiable piece of Lower Canada domination, thus to condemn to silence an hon. gentleman from Upper Canada, who was so admirably qualified for the post of Finance Minister.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers and laughter.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South]—There was another pause of three or four minutes before any hon. gentleman arose to speak.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] observed that hon. gentlemen opposite appeared equally reluctant to support their own motion in amendment or to take a vote upon it.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—Such being the case, he (Mr. Rose) would take the liberty of supplementing one or two points referred to by his hon. friend the Finance Minister [Alexander Galt]. It would be remembered that the hon. member for West York [Mr. Howland] announced it was his intention to reimpose the tolls in a very modified form. Now, the hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] so clearly pointed out the fact that this policy had existed from 1851 till 1859, and that it was, in reality, the principle of that policy which hon. gentlemen opposite were now going to condemn—a policy which they themselves supported long enough, that he (Mr. Rose) wished to shew in what respect the policy of the hon. member for West York [Mr. Howland] and which was adopted by his successor was a deviation from the pre-existing principle that prevailed. He (Mr. R.) would give a specimen of the modification of the tolls which the hon. member for West York [William Howland] introduced, as compared with the tariff of 1859, which was substantially the tariff, with slight modification, which prevailed for a number of years previous. The tariff of 1863, which was introduced by the hon. gentleman now in opposition, operated so as to make an excess as regards the latter over the former year of no less than $83.40 in the transport of a cargo of corn through the canals to tidewater. This was the modification which the hon. gentleman gave the trade the benefit of.

Hon. Mr. Rose, in answer to an interruption on the part of the Hon. Mr. Holton, said he knew precisely what he was talking about. He promised him he would not be found astray in any one of the figures or facts he was about to give; and he was quite prepared to place in the hands of the member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] the data on which were based the statements he was about to make to the House. He (Mr. Rose) would assert, without fear of contradiction, that the modification of which the trade got the benefit was an increase of $83.40, on a cargo of corn amounting to 15,000 bushels, from the West down to tidewater; and, on a cargo of wheat, taking the same course, the trade had received the benefit of a similar modification in the shape of an increase of $68.25, on a cargo of about the same quantity of this cereal. On a cargo of flour, of 3600 barrels, there was a similar modification to the extent of about $100.42 more than under the previous system,—this was, as compared with the tariff of 1859. He hoped his hon. friend who spoke last would not be disposed to consider that this trade, which we had been investing so much money to attract to the St. Lawrence route—the grain-trade of the West—was at all an insignificant thing to the interests of the country. He (Mr. Rose) thought it of the greatest importance, and would heartily join the Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] in recommending a modification of his tariff, as regards the Canadian trade, and would join him in going still further than he had done to attract the Western trade through the St. Lawrence Canals; and he trusted that the propositions which he would bring before this House would have that tendency. As compared with 1860, the tariff of 1863 exhibited an excess in the toll on a cargo of corn, coming downwards, of $135.52; on wheat, $147.[illegible]2, and on a cargo of flour, $170 and some cents odd. He begged the House to mark the practical operation of this higher tariff. Taking the comparison between the years just mentioned, it would be seen that the excess as regard the latter was just a premium to that extent to lay down cargoes of wheat and flour at Oswego and Ogdensburg, in preference to the St. Lawrence. The policy of the hon. member for West York had been to diminish, in some respects, the tolls on the Welland Canal, while putting on a higher rate of toll on the St. Lawrence Canals, which had had the effect of diverting trade from the St. Lawrence route to Ogdensburg and Oswego.—

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

William Howland [York West] made some remark which was inaudible in the gallery.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] said the hon. gentleman might find fault with his argument if he pleased, but he would find that the facts which he had just stated to the House established the following propositions:—First, that there was an excess of tolls on his tariff as compared with the tariff of 1859 and previous years; second, that, as compared with the tariff of the present hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt], who, while before in office, had taken off the tolls on the through trade, it had produced the evils already mentioned. The inference necessarily was that they could lay down grain at Oswego and Ogdensburg by so much cheaper than it could be brought to Quebec or Montreal. It had been said that although trade had been promoted to a certain extent, and increased under the policy of the hon. Finance Minister, that it was due to other causes than the reduction of tolls.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] said it was nevertheless curious that as long as the former tariff of the present Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] was in existence, our trade increased enormously, and after it was withdrawn trade decreased.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—We had got those two facts before us and could come to no other conclusion than that our trade prospered in consequence of the favorable tariff.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—The tolls have nothing whatever to do with it.

Some Hon. Members—Oh, oh.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] was surprised at the hon. gentleman’s audacity—surprised at the hon. gentleman who was supposed at least to know so much respecting commercial matters, stating that a large margin of increase on the transport of wheat, flour and grain, had nothing whatever to do with diverting trade either to New York or the St. Lawrence.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers and laughter.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He was glad that the hon. gentleman had made that frank avowal, when it was well known that the slightest margin would often direct the volume of trade, either down the St. Lawrence or in preference to other particular routes. When the House knew that ships coming out to New York laden with emigrants, were often obliged to go back empty for want of a cargo—that they were glad to get a return cargo even for ballast, such being their anxiety to get back for more emigrants; the fact of freights being taken now at a nominal sum, there could be easily understood.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—Now as the hon. gentleman seemed to ignore or rather attach no importance to the fact of there having been an enormous increase of our carrying trade, perhaps the House would bear with him [Mr. Rose] if he stated how it rose from 1859 to 1862. They found that in the port of Montreal, where the great bulk of the grain was usually shipped, that the tonnage of the vessels at that port in 1859 was 94,000 tons; 1860, 121,000; 1861, 761,000; and in 1862 it rose to 265,000, while the figures in 1863 fell to 209,000.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Did it not decrease on other routes too.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] asked if the hon. gentleman thought it decreased in this proportion at other routes. He (Mr. Rose) believed that the Erie Canal exhibited a very large increase in 1863, but what was the case with regard to New York or Boston he did not pretend to say. Let us come to the exports of corn by the St. Lawrence. In 1861, 1,500,000 bushels were exported; in 1862, 2,600,000; which, in 1863, it had diminished to 851,000, showing an increase from 1861, under the operation of what he might sail the free trade system, from 150,000 to 2,600,000 bushels, and under the restricted system, decreasing from the latter figure, in 1862, to 861,000.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—This was not confined to corn. Take wheat, for example, and a diminution would also be observable as between the amount exported in 1863, as compared with the export of the two former years. In 1861, the quantity sent away was 5,500,000 bushels; in 1862, 6,500,000, which fell in 1863 to 3,700,000. A corresponding decrease took place in the article of flour, not quite to such an extent, however. It fell from 605,000 brls., in 1861, to 500,000 in 1863. He was not prepared for such a startling decrease as last year showed, and was told the present year would also exhibit a large decrease.

• (p. 147 in the primary document)

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Notwithstanding the recent deductions?

John Rose [Montreal Centre] was afraid they came too late, and believed the evil results of the systems would have been obviated had the desirable change taken effect earlier.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He did think that it was important, if we attached any importance to the Western trade, that it should receive every encouragement.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—And it must be remembered that trade through the American routes had the benefit of a depreciated currency, and as long as this lasted they had an advantage over Canadian routes.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The House knew how difficult it was to take trade away from a great, long established centre like New York. To accomplish this, we must offer the trade some great compensating advantage. We must be prepared to make a little present sacrifice to secure a large future gain. We must make known, or advertise our advantages, and in every laudable way endeavor to attract that trade hither which, when obtained, could not probably revert to its former channels. We could then make our own terms with more safety in reference to the burdens to be imposed. He would now ask the House to observe how the “modifications” affected the Ottawa trade—one of the greatest importance—he meant that in lumber.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—There is a large increase there.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—A tolerably large increase in lumber indeed. But as regards this article there was only one route for it to reach market from Ottawa, and it must necessarily follow that, no matter what the tolls.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He thought it did not require a person to have much astuteness to see—in fact a person with half an eye could perceive that the hon. gentleman’s remark had no application and proved nothing for his case. Grain had two outlets, and could be attracted to either, but lumber had only one from Ottawa, and that by the river.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—With respect to the Ottawa and Grenville route tolls, he would make a comparison between 1859 and 1863. A steamer on this route in 1859 paid per ton a penny up and a half-penny down, or about 3 cents, while the “modification” of the hon. member for West York was charging 5 cents each way. This was a modification in the wrong way. But in regard to sawn lumber in boats, the toll rose from 7 cts. to 20 cts. within the same period, and from 18 to 32 cents on sawn lumber in rafts, being an increase of 13 cents on the one and 14 on the other. He (Mr. Rose) did hope that the Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] would, in the resolution he intended to submit in regard to the other canal tolls, take up those in the Rideau as well as Ottawa Canals.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] was understood to say he would consider the matter.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] was glad to hear it.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He thought that grain and other articles coming by way of the Rideau were entitled to the same consideration as articles coming by the St. Lawrence canals only.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The hon. member for Lambton had alluded to one of the drawbacks which he said characterized the St. Lawrence route—namely, the delay that sometimes occurred in regard to grain laden vessels from the West finding berths, and getting discharged at Montreal. He (Mr. Rose) believed there had been some instances of great delay; but it was due entirely to the want of proper canal accommodation at the mouth of the Lachine Canal. Sometimes, in the very hurried season of the year, it was impossible for vessels to obtain berths; and he brought this fact under the notice of the late Government as well as the present, and pointed out the necessity of enlarging the basins of the Lachine Canal, which he believed would pay over and over again the cost of that improvement.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Without charges?

John Rose [Montreal Centre] remarked in reply to an observation of Hon. Mr. Holton, that he was prepared to make a present sacrifice for the sake of future good to the interests of the country. This was an idea which that hon. gentleman could not comprehend. He would at once kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

Thomas Parker [Wellington North]—You would feed her on Upper Canada wheat.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] proceeded to answer the arguments of the hon. member for Lambton [Alexander Mackenzie]. That gentleman had spoken of the enormous loss in money which the carrying out of the Finance Minister’s [Alexander Galt] policy in regard to the canal tolls would entail. Let us see what it would be. We found that during 1860, 1861, 1862, (when the Canadian trade was altogether free, except a small percentage which was merely connected with statistics)—that from the Foreign trade which did not come through the St. Lawrence canals, but went to Ogdensburg and Oswego, there was a sufficient amount of tolls collected to pay for the expenses of all the canals, and there was no year of those mentioned in which there was not a small excess of between $30,000 and $40,000 over the sum required for this service. The present Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] got a large amount from the foreign trade passing through the Welland Canal, even when the tolls were almost all, and had had so managed as to afford freedom and the greatest benefit to our own trade passing through the St. Lawrence. What were the facts in this case? We found that in no year during which the system of light tolls remained in operation had there been a deficiency; but, on the contrary, more then enough to pay the expenses of our canals, out of the revenue derived from the foreign trade.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Including repairs?

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—Yes, even including repairs both ordinary and extraordinary, and the cost of collection. The hon. gentleman, if he examined this matter, would find the average net returns during the three years when tolls were abrogated was $231,000, or $77,000 a year, while taking the cost for maintenance at $75,000 a-year there was still an excess.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The House would find that in even 1858, under the policy which was now being resorted to, the gross tolls received, from the canals was $293,322; in 1863, the year in which the enormous additions to the tolls operated, the gross amount collected from the canals was $385,000, showing an increase of only $91,000, for all those additions to the tolls.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

In answer to William Howland [York West],

John Rose [Montreal Centre] said that hon. member’s re-imposition of the canal tolls checked the traffic enormously, which would otherwise have exhibited a prodigious increase; for when the tolls were low the traffic vastly increased and when high, decreased correspondingly.

Some Hon. Members—Hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The hon. gentleman went on to say that he did not think it necessary to say much more on the question of canal tolls, for really hon. gentlemen opposite seemed equally reluctant to advance any arguments in support of the motion now before the House, or take a vote upon it.

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

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He (Mr. Rose) certainly looked upon the motion in question as intended as a vote of want of confidence.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance]—It was so announced on the opposite side, the other night.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] observed that as the debate had assumed general features, he would take occasion to comment on one or two other matters alluded to in the speech delivered by the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Holton) the other night. He heartily approved of the main features of the financial policy of the honorable Finance Minister [Alexander Galt], as enunciated by him the other night; and he thought the hon. member opposite had no reason whatever to sneer at the Finance Minister’s [Alexander Galt] intention to take measures to equalize the revenue and expenditure. Why, it was the hon. gentleman’s (Mr. Holton’s) great object on entering public life—it was his special mission, so to speak. The hon. gentleman, too, had taken occasion to indulge in a passing attack on his (Mr. Rose’s) constituency of Montreal Centre. Well, the hon. gentleman’s feelings could be understood and appreciated. He (Mr. Holton) stood in the position of a discarded suitor—he had twice wooed, twice indulged in the soft and supplicant tones of the lover, and he had twice been rejected.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—As a result he had become desperate and he now fiercely assailed those whose smiles he had once so tenderly sought.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The House and the country would, therefore, make some allowance for the bitterness of spirit with which the hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] spoke when he enjoyed a fling at the constituency, speaking of it as the shoemaking interest and soap-boiling interest of Montreal Centre, in connection with his comments on the commercial policy of the hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt]. But not only had the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holton) twice wooed, and been twice unsuccessful, but so jealous was he of his rival that when he found his own chances were gone, he actually put forward another gentleman in his stead he tried the Collector of Customs of Montreal, but without avail—his hope that a better-looking suitor would meet with the favor he had sought in vain, proved unfounded.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—Mr. Holmes was placed in the gap—“happy homes and altars free” was the watchword, but whether he sued vicariously or in person the hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] was doomed to disappointment.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He (Mr. Rose) denied that he had thrust any particular suggestions upon the Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] in reference to his commercial policy. He was disposed to judge of that policy independently, as it had been announced to this House—not to worm himself into the secrets of the Government. It was not fair to any Government to charge them with having moulded their financial and commercial courses, because any particular member happened to represent a constituency on the floor of this house.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He (Mr. Rose) had allowed himself to be withdrawn from the main questions at issue, in making these remarks in reply to the hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton], who never could abstain from a sneer at his old love; but he felt it was due to his hon. friend the Finance Minister [Alexander Galt], as well as to himself, to repudiate the situation which the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Holton) had endeavored to force upon him.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He would now say that, with reference to the excise on spirits, he (Mr. Rose) entirely approved of it; and he only hoped some means would be devised to ensure the protection of the revenue, and the better collection of the excise. There was no doubt that frauds were perpetuated to a considerable extent. It was not, of course, with regard to the large leading establishments, over which Government supervision could be easily exercised, and which were generally in honest hands, that any difficulty in this respect existed—it was in reference to the smaller stills that supervision was difficult and fraud easy. The fact that the system required improvement was rendered evident by the fact that the quantity of spirits returned as produced fell far short, indeed, in comparison with the amount of grain admitted to be used for the purpose of manufacture. A better method of protecting the revenue was therefore desirable; and he hoped some such means would be devised, and that hon. members would unite in giving it their support. As had been suggested, he believed by the hon. member for West York [William Howland], it would be a wise policy to tax the distilling power, and compel the manufacturers to take licenses for short stated periods. More through supervision could thus be exercised, and frauds would be prevented. He regretted to be obliged again to refer to his hon. friend from Chateauguay (Mr. Holton), but he really felt it to be his duty to make a few remarks in reference to an observation made by that hon. gentleman about the excise on tobacco. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Holton) had remarked the other night that, by the course which the Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] had pursued with regard to the excise on spirits he now stood committed to a tax on the stocks of tobacco on hand.

Now, he (Mr. Rose) trusted the “malign influence” of the hon. gentleman, if he might quote the phrase, would not have the effect of bringing about such a policy as he seemed to desire, and had urged the Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] to pursue. He (Mr. Rose) held that after the stocks had passed out of first hands—after it had passed from the hands of the manufacturer into those of the general merchant, it would be unjust to touch it, and he did not believe any precedent for such a course could be found in English practices.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The hon. gentleman quoted from the English constitutional practice in such matters, to shew that articles were taxed there only “before they were permitted to be entered for consumption;” and he, therefore, repeated that it would be unjust to tax the article which had gone into the hands of the general merchant. The practice which he had quoted shewed that it presumed the article to be still in bond, and not entered for consumption. Let the tax be put on the stock held by the manufacturer. This could be done; but it could not, in justice, be done with respect to that which was held by the general merchant. It should be borne in mind that there was no officer in whose custody the latter was, and domiciliary visits would, therefore, become necessary in order to ascertain the amount. If, however, this were attempted, the large stocks now held in this Province would be exported rather than pay the excise. Tobacco could now be manufactured much cheaper than formerly, owing to the cheapness of the leaf grown in the Western States, and owing also in some measure to the rate of exchange; and parties would, therefore, prefer to send the present stocks out of the country than to pay the excise upon them. It was evident, therefore, that when the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Holton) recommending the taxation of the stocks of tobacco in the manner in which he did, he had not fully considered the question.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] was understood to assert that hon. gentleman opposite had urged the same course last year.

William Howland [York West] made some observation which was inaudible in the gallery.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] said that what the hon. member for West York (Mr. Howland) observed was, that last year, when he introduced his budget, he had been attacked by the hon. member for Sherbrooke [Alexander Galt] for not proposing to reach stocks on hand.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] said that what he had argued was, that the excise on spirits should be put in force at once.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] remarked that the proposition of the hon. member for West York [William Howland] was, that the spirit duties should go into force on a future day.

William McDougall [Ontario North] quoted an extract [illegible] Hon. Mr. Galt’s speech, on the occasion

• (p. 148 in the primary document)

referred to by the hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton].

John Rose [Montreal Centre] said that the extract quoted just showed this—that the hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] referred to the stocks in the hands of manufacturers.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—And the policy which the hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] had announced, with regard to the article of spirits, was perfectly consistent with the views he (Mr. Rose) urged in reference to tobacco—namely, to confine the excise to the stocks in the hands of the original manufacturers. The objections to the course suggested by the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Holton) were rather strong, and they were just these—In the first place, it was arbitrary and unjust—in the second, they could not be carried out; and, in the next place, if carried out, it would be of no use at all.

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

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—Two or three of the larger mercantile establishments might be reached; but the stocks would soon be disseminated all over the country in the hands of consumers. But he (Mr. Rose) saw no difficulty whatever in imposing the excise at once on the tobacco in the hands of the manufacturers, inasmuch as there were, he believed, but fourteen factories in the Province, namely—6 in Montreal, 5 in Toronto, and 3 in Hamilton.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He (Mr. Rose) felt it to be his duty to apologize for continuing to occupy the attention of the House on these details; but he would have a few observations of a general nature to make on the motion of the hon. member for Hochelaga [Antoine-Aimé Dorion], which he looked upon in the light of a motion of want of confidence, and as proposed in a factious spirit. Now, he believed there were many members of this House who, though giving a loyal support to the party, would be unwilling to follow, in a slavish manner, at the heels of any party. He believed there were members of this House who preferred the general interests of the county rather than the mere ascendancy of party.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—Holding this opinion, he (Mr. Rose) did not hesitate to say that a great opportunity for the fusion of men of moderate views and the formation of a strong Government had been thrown away.

John White [Halton]—What had this motion to do with these events?

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—What had it to do with the negotiations? It was just such extreme men as the hon. gentleman who had precented the fusion which would have led to the formation of a strong Government.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He (Mr. Rose) did not hesitate to say that if such a Government had been formed, it would have received his (Mr. Rose’s) support.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He believed if there had been a little more forbearance, a little less of that spirit of exigeance which the hon. gentleman who had interrupted him a moment a go, had shown, we should now have had a strong Government, and extreme party lines of an injurious character would have been obliterated.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The hon. gentlemen opposite voluntarily resigned office, thereby confessing their incapacity to conduct the government of the country. What was the result? An effort was made to form a combination of moderate men; but the endeavor failed—he was not going to say who was responsible for the failure or the breaking off of the negotiations; but he did believe, as he had already said, that a golden opportunity had been thrown away.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The result was that hon. gentlemen now on the Ministerial benches, found themselves, so to speak, forced to assume the responsibilities of Government.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

An Hon. Member—No, no.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—An hon. member said “no.” Who, then, could have been called upon to form a Government? Was it those hon. gentlemen, who, of their own tree will, had confessed that they were unable to carry on the Government any longer?

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

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—Had they ventured to assume office again they knew that they would be met by the same compact party by whom they had been opposed before.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—However, the end sought to be attained by the negotiations was thwarted perhaps by the demand of extreme party men and his hon. friends were forced to take office—yes, he repeated it, many of them were unwilling to enter upon official duties; but found themselves compelled by force of circumstances to forego their own inclinations, and in doing so they were actuated by the purest spirit of patriotism.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—It was a matter of necessity that they should do so. Hon. gentlemen opposite had confessed themselves unable to retain power. It was all very well for them to put on a cheerful air now and throw out hints that they could command a majority of the House and carry on the Government. If this was the case, why had they not done so?

An Hon. Member—Because they could not.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] went on to draw attention to the language of the hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton], who had assumed the task of restoring the equilibrium between the revenue and expenditure—indeed it was, according to his own statement, his great object in taking office. But the hon. gentleman had nevertheless failed to do it, and he now pooh-pooh’d the thing and argued that it was quite simple and easy, and that he had left a “stock of ideas” in his department which enabled his successor to do it. If the great object in question was so easily effected, why was a special session called for the purpose?

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] made some remark which was understood as denying that such was the case.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—Why, it was in the Royal speech!

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose) then went on to quote from a speech of the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Holton) in which the latter spoke of his intention “to submit such measures as were best calculated to restore our finances to a sound basis.” Well, when were they restored?

William McDougall [Ontario North]—Now.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] thanked the hon. gentleman for the candid avowal. The restoration might indeed be considered as effected, since the House and the country had so unanimously approved the sound recommendations of the hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt].

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—But how long did the hon. gentleman opposite keep the public waiting for his great scheme which was to restore our finances to a sound basis. Month after month passed; but his promised measures came not; and this delay was made the chief causes of attack on the Government, the last session. Surely the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holton) could not say that he had not had sufficient time. First from May to August, and then from October to May, there were seven months, and yet he had not done anything. The celebrated mountain in labour finally produced a mouse; but the hon. gentleman had produced nothing—not even a mouse.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—Though hon. gentlemen opposite did not bring forth a mouse, they made several “rats.”

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—Yes, and the process of “rat”-making was not very creditable. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Holton) talked very lightly of the condition of things to-day; but, in October last, he loudly proclaimed that they were in a state of financial crisis.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The first step of hon. gentlemen on the Opposition benches was to endeavor to embarrass the action of the Government in their endeavors to restore a financial equilibrium—they preferred to subordinate the general interests to party considerations, instead of sinking the latter for the good of the country. The hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] had spoken of the country as being in a state of financial crisis; and yet, after seven months’ preparation, during which period he was repeatedly entreated to bring down his budget, he had finally preferred to abandon the sinking ship.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

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

After the recess— 

John Rose [Montreal Centre] went on to say that he thought he had shewn five things. First, that the canal tolls were largely increased under the Government of gentlemen opposite; that the volume of trade was greatly diminished, owing to the imposition of high tolls; that on the abrogation of the tolls as they stood in 1859, the volume of trade had greatly increased. Farther, that under the policy of the present Finance Minister [Alexander Galt], more than a sufficient amount of toll was obtained from the foreign trade to maintain the canals in order and cover all other expenses connected therewith, without our trade contributing anything, and that at the present juncture there were peculiar reasons why we should not again resort to the system of clogging trade.—The hon. gentleman then went on to the general question. The Macdonald-Sicotte Government and the Macdonald-Dorion Government wee loud in their protestations of their desire to restore the financial equilibrium, but they had failed to do so. Now, the House had declared that the policy of the Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] would restore that desirable condition, yet what did hon. gentlemen now seek? They proposed to turn the present Government out if they possibly could.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—If they succeeded how was the equilibrium to be restored? Supposing the Government were defeated, what would be the result? Were they going to resign and allow hon. gentlemen opposite to go through the farce of assuming a position they were, according to their own statement, unable to sustain?

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—If hon. gentlemen could devise any means, other than an appeal to the country, he (Mr. Rose) would admit it.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—If hon. gentlemen opposite will support us!

Some Hon. Members—Cries of no, no, and laughter.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] said that if the late Finance Minister [Luther Holton] had come down with such a scheme as the hon. member for Sherbrooke [Alexander Galt] had brought down—from whatever side it came—he (Mr. Rose) would have given it his support.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—And he called on them to be equally patriotic.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] arose to make some remarks, but was compelled, by repeated calls of “Order,” to sit down.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] said that, with regard to our Governmental difficulties, he did not mean to say but that, perhaps, there was some little fault to be attributed to our system—to the absolute necessity, for instance, of selecting a certain number from another—a number speaking French, and a number speaking English—one from this particular district, and one from that particular district; but, this, he did say, that whatever these difficulties were, it was our duty to address ourselves seriously to the work of seeing whether we cannot find a remedy for them.

George Brown [Oxford South]—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] said he would not pretend to say in what policy the remedy would be found—whether in a federation, or in any other of the courses suggested. He repeated that he believed hon. gentlemen on the opposite side had been too exacting when they sought to ostracise hon. gentlemen on this side.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—The hon. member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] had went on to say that there could not be a dissolution. Would the hon. gentleman, then, say what other course could be adopted? Would he tell us what else could be done? Would he tell us what else could be done? Would the hon. member for Cornwall [John Sandfield Macdonald] be sent for?

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He (Mr. Rose) appealed to those hon. members who were desirous of seeing the affairs of the country properly carried on irrespective of party. Now, what other result than a dissolution could the success of a motion such as the one under discussion to-night have? And what would a dissolution accomplish? There was a deficit, there was a large sum—some three millions—due to our financial agents. Would this state of affairs e remedied if there should be a dissolution? They would sacrifice the tobacco duty, and the stamp duty, and perpetuate a state of chronic deficiency for, perhaps, six months before the Government again met in the House, and endeavored to do that which the House and the country admitted the hon. Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] to have succeeded in doing. All legislation—our mining legislation, and other important measures—would be again suspended, although we had already been two years without any general legislation. Were we to be plunged into this chronic state of the crises again? Hon. gentlemen retorted by talking of alleged factious opposition, when hon. gentlemen now on this side of the House were on the Opposition benches. But they could not have been expected to follow any other course, immediately after a general election under the auspices of the then Government, and with a Finance Minister [Alexander Galt] who had failed to bring down the financial measures he had promised.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—He (Mr. Rose) doubted, too, if after a general election, the position would be improved. Parties would probably come back much the same as they were—with little, if any gain on either side. It would be much better ad wiser, therefore, for the Opposition—since they had admitted that they were unable to conduct the business of the country—to discuss the policy of the Government on its own merits. He (Mr. Rose) would now, in conclusion,, have a word to say, with reference to the Volunteers, to the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. J.S. Macdonald), who had taken occasion, the other evening, to say that now, that his (Mr. Rose’s) friends were in power he (Mr. Rose) would get some fat offices distributed among them, and no more would be heard from him about their claims. This was in keeping with the hon. member’s (Mr. J.S. Macdonald’s) past course. He had always sneered at the volunteers, taunted them with playing at soldiers, and with only wanting personal gain—so much so that they had become disgusted with such treatment and discouraged from further efforts. The hon. gentleman, too, had taunted the Government with resting content with his bill as a measure of defence. His bill, forsooth! Why, when the hon. gentleman introduced the measure, he appeared to know nothing at all about it, until numerous suggestions were made by himself (Mr. Rose) and other hon. gentlemen. Next day he came down with printed amendment as long as the bill itself, the result of these suggestions, and yet he persisted in claiming parentage of the bill. He (Mr. Rose) begged to tell that hon. member that he would continue, as he had hitherto done, to support the claims of the volunteers whenever they required his advocacy, and that if the Government did not do their duty to the volunteers, they would be opposed by him.—The hon. gentleman then concluded amid loud cheers.

• (p. 149 in the primary document)

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] went on at considerable length, in reply, to discuss the question of canal tolls, urging that no fairer source of revenue could be found than a reasonable toll on our public works.

Hector-Louis Langevin [Dorchester, Solicitor General East] made a long and able speech, in which he reviewed the financial question, citing figures to prove the fallacious nature of the argument adduced by the ex-Finance Minister [Luther Holton] and other hon. gentlemen on the Opposition side.

Henri Joli [Lotbinière] argued that the Government now in power was not a new Government, but an old Government, which had already been tried and condemned by the House. He quoted a number of extracts from the Report of the Financial and Departmental Commission, for the purpose of shewing—in contradiction of the statements made on the other side of the House—that the Commission had really succeeded in directing the attention of the country to a corrupt and extravagant style of management. In conclusion, he expressed his determination to vote for the Hon. Mr. Dorion’s motion.

Joseph Perrault [Richelieu] was understood to say that he considered it wrong to mix up a motion of want of confidence with a question of commercial policy. He spoke of the present Premier [Étienne Pascal Taché] as being an hon. gentleman of high talent and character, and said that there were several of his colleagues who were men of great energy and ability, while there were others—a minority he admitted—who had committed acts which could not be defended. In this country, however, talent was sufficiently rare to justify us in refraining from ostracising it. He, (Mr. Perrault) however, held the position he had always occupied, and he was prepared to judge the Government by its measures alone.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Joseph Perrault [Richelieu]—With regard to the question now before the House, he held that the true policy would be to capitalize the canal tolls with a view to deepening, widening, and otherwise improving our canal system. He would vote on the merits of this question alone; and he would not approve of a bad measure in order to avoid defeating a Government.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Thomas Parker [Wellington North] expressed a desire to speak on the question; but said it would be unfair to compel him to do so at this late hour. He suggested an adjournment of the debate.

Some Hon. Members—Cries of “Question” from Ministerial supporters.

Fitzwilliam Chambers [Brockville] said he also desired to make some observations, and he therefore hoped there would be no objection to an adjournment.

Some Hon. Members—Cries of “Question,” and “Finish up.”

John Scoble [Elgin West] also urged that an adjournment of the debate was desirable.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] said that, as a matter of fairness to the Government, there should be a vote to-night. It was a wilful, wanton, and causeless delay to prolong the debate further. Hon. members had made up their minds as so how they were going to vote, and there was no justification for further loss of time.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall]—To-morrow was Government-day, and the Government were anxious to go on with business.

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

George Brown [Oxford South] said it would be unjust, under the circumstances, to refuse an adjournment.

William McDougall [Ontario North] spoke in the same sense.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South] said that, since so many members wished to speak on the question, it would be nothing more or less than gaggling the House. He hoped the Government would not refuse an adjournment.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said he really could not resist the insinuating manner of his hon. friend from South Wentworth (Mr. Rymal), and he would, therefore, no longer oppose the demand for an adjournment. It was time, however, that this debate should be brought to a close.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—The motion had been introduced on Friday evening, with a great flourish of trumpets. The Government were ready to offer hon. gentlemen battle on that evening, but they shrank from it. Again, this evening, the Government were ready to do battle, but their opponents shunned the contest. He trusted the debate would be brought to a close to-morrow (Tuesday) night. The weather was becoming unpleasantly warm, and this House was becoming unpleasantly hot; and it was desirable, in the extreme, that the business of the session should be proceeded with without delay.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Antoine-Aimé Dorion [Hochelaga] said he concurred in the desire expressed by the hon. Attorney General West [John A. Macdonald], and he did really hope that the debate would be brought to a close on Tuesday evening.

A motion of adjournment was then carried, and the House adjourned at midnight.