Document Information

Date: 1864-03-18
By: Province of Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Province of Canada, Parliament, Scrapbook Debates, 8th Parl, 2nd Sess, 1864 at 106-108.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1864

The Easter Recess

Henry Munro [Durham West] moved, in amendment,

That the House adjourn till Thursday, the 31^st instant.

Christopher Dunkin [Brome] was of opinion that this motion, in amendment to the motion for adjournment moved by the Hon. Attorney General West [John Sandfield Macdonald], could not be received.

The Speaker was understood to say that the amendment was in order.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall, Premier, Attorney-General West, and Minister of Militia] said he did not think it was fair to this House to make this motion after the deliberate vote of the House the other day on the question of the Easter recess.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall, Premier, Attorney-General West, and Minister of Militia]—There had been those who thought the Government were not sincere in wishing for no adjournment; but such was not the case.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall, Premier, Attorney-General West, and Minister of Militia]—It would be seen that the Government had no wish for an adjournment, by the way in which they voted.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall, Premier, Attorney-General West, and Minister of Militia]—If the majority of the House, however wished to take this matter into their own hands, the Government, as was the custom, would not interfere.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John White [Halton] said that two-thirds of the members would not be here on the Monday after Easter.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John White [Halton]—Such being the case the business of the country could not be proceeded with in so thin a House.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston] believed there had been some underhand work in the matter of the adjournment; and he was very happy to find that the Government were opposed to it.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston]—The trick attempted to be practiced on the country by this motion was an abominable one. A great majority of the House had decided that there should be no adjournment, yet some of these gentlemen had gone home, and others of them had paired off. He would ask was it fair that gentlemen should be betrayed in this manner—that those who had voted for no adjournment should go home. He was sure that common sense and the feeling of the House would strongly support the Government.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

James O’Halloran [Missisquoi] considered that the motion was in order, and the gentlemen who had paired off had no claim to the consideration of the House, they had voted against the adjournment, yet had gone off to take their Easter holidays. It was perfectly in the power of the House to adjourn until the 31^st of March.

Christopher Dunkin [Brome] hoped the motion would not be carried.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] explained his vote on the question of adjournment, stating that he said to the parties who presented him with a paper to sign relating to the subject, that he must have a fortnight or nothing.

Thomas Parker [Wellington North] said he would vote for an adjournment of some days, because the members who lived near Quebec took occasion to go home several times every session. He thought it was not fair for them to deprive the Western members of the privilege of going home once in the session, and keep them here with very little over a quorum present, and therefore not in a position to go on with any business of consequence. If the members of the House honestly expressed their opinion on this question, it would be in favor of an adjournment.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston]—Order, order! The hon. gentleman ought to know it is not Parliamentary to say that other hon. members did not vote according to their honest convictions.

John Macdonald [Toronto West] voted for the short adjournment, the other day, on the supposition that hon. gentlemen would remain in their seats and assist in pushing forward the business. But many hon. members, who had notices on the paper, had gone away, and many more would go. He thought he had as good a right to go as others, and would therefore vote for the amendment, accordingly.

Michael Foley [Waterloo North] asked the Speaker’s decision on the point of order—whether it was in order to entertain the amendment, when the House had already voted to adjourn from the 26^th until the 28^th.

The Speaker said the amendment did not conflict, on its face with the motion formerly passed, because that was only that “When the House adjourns on the 24^th, it stand adjourned until the 28^th.” The House was not obliged to meet on the 24^th, if it choose not to do so, and if it did not meet the motion formerly passed could have no effect. The present amendment was, therefore, in order. No notice was required upon any motion of adjournment.

Christopher Dunkin [Brome] remarked that the members of the Election Committees would be placed in a strange position if the amendment were carried. Very few of them had got leave to adjourn from the House, and they would therefore be obliged to remain if every other member went home.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East] said there was no use in hon. gentlemen talking about carrying the amendment. They could not do it.

A Member—Why?

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East] replied that he could keep them just where they were until twelve o’clock to-morrow, himself. When he undertook a thing he always took a great deal of pride in accomplishing it. It would be as impossible to see the House adjourn until the 31^st as it would be to see the current of the St. Lawrence run upward towards Montreal.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

Archibald McKellar [Kent]—It does that twice every day.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East]—It don’t go to Montreal. That might do for a joke in Upper Canada. It was about as good as the statement of a member of the Upper House, made to him when he was in Upper Canada, to the effect that they ought to have an Admiralty Court in that section of the Province as well as here!

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South] said the “round robin” that had been alluded to, was signed by about fifty of the members. He had circulated it for one, at the instigation of a member of the Opposition, and it was largely signed by gentlemen on that side of the House. But subsequently, several of them had came and erased their names, because, he supposed, they had received orders to do so from their chiefs, for fear the Government might not behave themselves properly during the recess.

Charles Alleyn [Quebec West] said he would make a tedious speech on the subject.

Michael Foley [Waterloo North]—You always do so on every subject.

Charles Alleyn [Quebec West] would outdo himself on this occasion to prevent the amendment being carried. He hoped, however, that notice would be given for the motion to stand for Monday, that hon. members might have a fair opportunity of voting.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] was of opinion that the reasons presented by the hon. member for Brome [Christopher Dunkin] were sufficient to prevent the motion being carried this evening. It would be impossible for hon. members on Election Committees to leave. He would therefore suggest that the hon. mover would allow the motion to stand as a notice for Monday. He could not help remarking, however, that the language used by the hon. member for Kingston, characterizing the amendment as “a dishonest and dishonorable trick,” was, to say the least, unparliamentary.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall, Premier, Attorney-General West, and Minister of Militia] was happy to find that hon. gentlemen oppositive were at one with the Government on the question of adjournment. He declared that he knew nothing of the motion, and hoped it would be withdrawn. If the hon. mover persisted, he would feel it his duty to vote against it. He had already expressed himself freely in reference to the adjournment, and trusted the hon. member for East Durham [John Smith] would reconsider his motion of amendment, and allow the House to adjourn, as had been previously moved.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] took exception to the unparliamentary language used by the hon. member for Kingston [John A. Macdonald].

John A. Macdonald [Kingston] denied the charge; a person might characterize a motion just as he thought fit. He repeated this motion was a trick, and nothing else but a trick. It would not succeed, and did not deserve to succeed. He did not say that the Attorney General West [John Sandfield Macdonald] was a party to that trick, and the manly manner in which he opposed the adjournment showed this.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston]—The news of this motion was all over town to-day.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay, Minister of Finance]—I never heard of it.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston]—It is all over town. The trick was an unparliamentary and unworthy one.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] rose to a point of order.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston] said he had confidence in the personnel but not in the policy of the Ministry, and he was glad to see that they opposed the motion.

Alexander Smith [Toronto East] said he was one of those who had voted with the thirteen who voted against the motion to adjourn from the 24^th to the 28^th of March. But, that same day, when the House adjourned, he could have paired off with the thirteen gentlemen who had voted against the motion for adjournment.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West] explained, in reference to the statement of the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Rymal) that, after he (Mr. McGee) had signed the “round-robin” in favor of a fourteen days’ adjournment so as to allow Western members to go to their homes, he was met next day by an influential supporter of the Government, who complimented him on his adherence to the proposal for the adjournment, and observed that, by the time members returned after the fortnight’s recess, the Government would have made matters all right.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West]—Finding that this was the object in view, he (Mr. McGee) immediately proceeded to the hon. member for South Wentworth [Joseph Rymal], who was the depositary of the document at the time, and withdrew his name—erasing it in the most irascible manner of which he was capable.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West]—Doubtless, the Hon. Finance Minister [Luther Holton] was very anxious to obtain time to make his preparations; and, of course, it was that hon. member who guided the movements of the Government. It was for him (Mr. Holton) to command—it was for the hon. member for Cornwall [John Sandfield Macdonald] to obey. He (Mr. McGee) was not sorry to observe this ascendancy of the Hon. Finance Minister [Luther Holton]. Matters were as they should be, for brains were in the ascendant, and the head governed, as it ought.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West]—If the Government were not prepared to go on—if they wanted time to prepare themselves or to reconstruct, then let them say so by all means—let them come down to the House and ask for time, and abide by consequences. The action of the supporters of the Government in this matter reminded him (Mr. McGee) of one of the earliest political novels he had read—“Paul Clifford”—in which the government of the day is represented by a gang of “gentlemen of the road.”

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West]—One of these, Augustus Tomlinson, a footpad of a serious turn of mind, is made to describe the distinction between himself and Viscount [illegible], by saying that while he was good “on the open road, the Viscount was the devil at turning a corner.”

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West]—Now, the Hon. Premier—the Viscount Dunshunner of the present Government—was very sharp at turning a corner, no doubt; but the House would not allow him to turn a corner on this point.

Some Hon. Members—Roars of laughter.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West]—It was humiliating, indeed, to see the precarious position in which the Government stood in this House. They resembled strongly a pair of too short breeches sustained by a pair of borrowed suspenders.

Some Hon. Members—Loud cheers and laughter.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West]—The hon. gentleman went on to say that this was the position in which we stood, and in which we were asked to grant an adjournment for a fortnight. He had always thought

• (p. 108 in the primary document)

the hon. member for West Durham [Henry Munro] a man who pursued a sincerely honest and upright course according to his views, and he believed he would not be a party to any dodge, and was not in presenting this motion of adjournment. But the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Rymal) was concerned in this round robin, and he had taken occasion to refer to him (Mr. McGee) in connexion with the matter before he came into the House. That gentleman had a fashion of saying very bitter things, more in earnest than in fun, by way of a joke, but he would not give him what he deserved—a slight castigation—on this occasion.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South] —You may as well “let her rip.”

Some Hon. Members—Roars of laughter continuing several seconds.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West] thought his hon. friend should be taken down a peg or two, and that he should be taken to the Sergeant-of-the-Mace to give him a round dozen. If he must have this habit of jesting in Parliament so confirmed, so as to make a Court Fool of himself, he would have to be taken in hand.

Some Hon. Members—Renewed laughter.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West]—If the proposition for an adjournment for a fortnight had been simply, as it was represented to him; (Mr. McGee) intended for the convenience of Western members to spend a week going to and returning from their homes, and needing a few days relaxation thereat, he would have subscribed to it most cordially. But, being, as he was informed, intended as a mere party manœuvre to gain time, that was so precious for the Government, which was not pressing on any measures, and which had brought in a bill on this Government day, sure to consume the whole of the sitting, he determined to oppose the scheme for a fortnight’s adjournment. He had consequently voted with the 100 members against the 13, for the motion of adjournment that had passed, and he saw no reason for the House to undo what it had done on that occasion. He therefore hoped the hon. gentleman would withdraw his motion, which he might give as a notice for Monday next, then all would be prepared to vote upon it one way or other.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West]—The hon. gentleman went on to remark that he understood Hon. Mr. Brown, before going to Toronto, whither he was called by the serious illness of his brother, had concluded an arrangement with the hon. member for East Toronto, (Mr. Macdonald) to go on with his motion, in reference to Representation by Population in his absence, and that the same agreement had been made with other members of his party.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] considered it was the height of impertinence on the part of the hon. member for Montreal West [Thomas D’Arcy McGee], to tell that side of the House what they ought to do with regard to the Hon. George Brown. It was arranged with the Hon. George Brown that his motion on Representation by Population should not be pressed till he was again able to be present in the House. The hon. member for Montreal West [Thomas D’Arcy McGee] had said that he (Mr. Mackenzie) was vulnerable; but where was there a more vulnerable man than that hon. member himself? He challenged that hon. gentleman to attack him at whatever time he liked. He viewed the political course of the hon. member for Montreal West [Thomas D’Arcy McGee] with contempt, and protested against his endeavoring to force his advice un-asked for on members belonging to this side of the House.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West] said that the hon. member for South Oxford [George Brown] had done him the honor to consult him in reference to his motion, and if he stood alone among the Opposition, he would vote for it. When there were no Mackenzies in the House with their brummagem radicalism, he stood alone in support of the hon. member for South Oxford [George Brown]. He periled his all in his support and brought him back to political life by means of the 374 Catholic votes which he procured for him in Toronto. If it were not for him he never would have come back.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South] said that the member for West Montreal [Thomas D’Arcy McGee] had done him the compliment to say that his opinion of him (Mr. Rymal) had changed, and that he did not regard him as quite so sincere a man, and so honest as some other members of the House. Well, he could assure the hon. gentleman that all that was reciprocal.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South]—The hon. gentleman had characterised himself and friends as low, lubberly jaw-breaking Western Democrats, and had given him particularly (Mr. Rymal) to understand that if he did not desist from speaking of his high mightiness, he would give him a dressing from which he would not soon recover.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South]—Well, he had to acknowledge that perhaps it was a little presumptuous in him to address any of his remarks to that important personage, or to tender him any advice. He was a modest man, and was therefore very unlike the hon. member. He did not make it a regular practice to rise in the House from time to time and brag by the hour of his great abilities, to the annoyance of his best friends. He had never boasted that he was known all the world over, wherever the English language was spoken, and his genius appreciated wherever he was known. He had never said that even in so remote a place as San Francisco he could find people who would take him by the hand; or that in Australia he would be greeted with a rousing welcome. By the way, there might be some ground for the latter boast, for he believed Australia was once a penal colony!

Some Hon. Members—Prolonged laughter.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South]—He had not been wafted across the ocean like a haughty bird of prey, and been taken around the country for exhibition purposes—admission 25 cents.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South]—Nor had he been sent to the Canadian Parliament to preach by the hour in relation to political morality, lecture hon. members upon consistency, and tender advice that was not called for. He did not, either, strike out for himself, again and again, a course of rectitude he could not keep, nor aim at a position to which he could never attain. It was astonishing, the manner in which he treated his colleagues with whom he had of late differed. Why, if an hon. member dropped a quiet and kindly interruption, or correction, he turned around with a look that had manslaughter in it,—

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South]—and replied in a surly tone that threatened utter annihilation if the indignity to his mightiness was repeated.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South]—But he would assure that hon. gentleman that, for one, he did not fear his shafts of malevolence, for he had a pretty thick hide, and could break a lance with him at any time he chose to come on.

Some Hon. Members—Loud laughter.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South]—He would speak in the House, whenever he felt it his duty to do so, would never speak unless he believed he had something to say, and when he had said it, he would sit down and quit. Whenever the hon. gentleman felt in the disposition to come on, he would say to him, as he did a few minutes ago “let her rip!”

Some Hon. Members—Prolonged laughter, and applause from all quarters.

Henry Munro [Durham West] said he had no desire of doing injustice to any party when he proposed the motion of amendment. He would have been sorry to have made the motion if he had any idea of raising such a lengthy discussion. He had no objection, however, to withdrawing it.

The Speaker declared the motion of amendment withdrawn, and the motion to adjourn carried.

The House, accordingly, adjourned at a quarter to one o’clock.