Page images
PDF
EPUB

L

APPENDIX.

THE PACIFIC SCANDAL.

The following is the speech delivered by Sir John Macdonald, in reply to the allegations concerning the pacific railway charter, in the house of commons, Ottawa, on Monday, Nov. 3rd, 1873. On rising, the honour

able gentleman was greeted with hearty cheers :

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to address you on the two motions now before the house, and the reason why I did not so intend is that I had already given my testimony on oath, and in that testimony I had endeavoured, notwithstanding the statement of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, to state the whole case as far as I knew it, according to the best of my conscience, concealing nothing and revealing everything. Therefore I did not think it well, according to the ordinary rule, that I should attempt in any way to supplement my statement on oath by my statements not on oath. (Cheers.) However I have been taunted, not in the house certainly, but I have heard it elsewhere and have seen it in the papers that I have been withholding my statements; that I have been keeping back, and that I dare not meet the house and the country. Sir, I dare meet this house and the country. (Cheers.) I know too well what the house and the country will do, and what the feeling of the country will be, when they know all the facts. They know many of them now, and those they do not know I shall endeavour presently enter upon. But now I enter upon the subject which is most interesting to this house-the question whether the government or any members of the government were . in any way implicated in the giving or granting of a charter, or of a privilege of any kind to men for corrupt motives. I shall allude to one or two subjects which a short time ago assumed prominence in the opinion of the country, but which in the course of the present debate have almost sunk into insignificance. A short time ago, from the 13th August till now, we heard nothing else but the unconstitutionality of the prorogation; nothing else but that a great wrong had been committed on the privileges of the house. Although I was here for only a few minutes before the house was prorogued, if I remember aright, this chamber rung with charges that the privileges of the house had been invaded. I not only heard the voice of the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Holton), but I saw his hand

567

brought down, with the ponderous strength of the hon. gentleman, on his desk, when he called "privilege !" "privilege!" and all because the representative of the sovereign had exercised a prerogative conferred upon him by law. The hon. gentleman was committing an anachronism. There were days when the prerogative of the crown and the privileges of the people were in opposition. There were days-but they were days long gone by, and there was no necessity for any attempt to revive them now-days when the prerogative of the crown was brought in opposition to the will of the people, and the representatives of the people; and then, as was proper, the will of the people was paramount, and when the crown opposed it, by prerogative or by excess of prerogative, the head of the sovereign rolled on the scaffold. But, Mr. Speaker, those days do not exist now, and I am happy to say that at this moment, in this age, the prerogative of the crown is a portion of the liberty of the people. (Cheers.) If we wish to preserve our liberties, if we wish to preserve our present constitution, if we do not wish again to have a long parliament or a rump parliament, if we do not wish again to have a parliament overriding every other constitutional authority, we shall preserve the prerogative of the crown as being a sacred trust, as being a portion of the liberties of the people. (Cheers.) Centuries ago, as I have said, the time was when the Bovereign could come down with his strong hands and could seize, or attempt at all events to seize, a member of parliament for performing his duty in his place. The day was once when the sovereign could come down and could banish and send to the tower, and even as has been known, could send to the block, members of parliament for defending the privi leges of the people. But when the sovereign is no longer a despot, when the sovereign is a constitutional monarch, when the sovereign takes his advice from the people, when the sovereign in his act of prerogative takes his advice from a committee selected from the representatives of the peo. ple and from the other Chamber, which other chamber has its power resting upon the basis of the will of the country and the will of the people, then I say there is no danger of the prerogative being used unconstitutionally; but the great danger of the country here, as in England, is that the prerogative may not be strong enough to resist the advancing wave of democracy. (Cheers.) And, sir, when in the undoubted exercise of the prerogative of the crown the representative of the sovereign came not to this Chamber but to the proper chamber, and announced his will, as the repre sentative of the sovereign, that parliament be prorogued, he committed no breach of the privileges of this house or the other house of parliament, and made no infringement on the liberties of the people. (Cheers.) It was charged that a great breach of the constitution had taken place. True it

is that we heard in a sort of minor key from the Globe, which had some character to lose, that although it was very inexpedient, it was no breach of the constitution. But every other paper, I believe, every organ of hon. gentlemen opposite, except the Globe, stated that there had been a great breach of the constitution and of the privileges of the people on the floor of parliament, and they were countenanced by the voice and clamour of hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) We might pardon them, perhaps, because we have seen cases of a similar kind in England, and therefore I can quite understand it, and I do not much blame them, as showing the momentary feeling of disappointment at the exercise of the royal prerogative, preventing the extension of the excitement into debates in a subsequent session. In 1820, at the time of Queen Caroline's trial, while the bill was pending, when it was resolved to withdraw the bill, and when the motion for the six months' disposal of that measure was carried, there was an outburst when the knock of the usher of the black rod was made at the door-an outburst of indignation on the part of the queen's friends because they had no opportunity of expressing their feelings against the course which had been taken. Parliament, however, was prorogued, notwithstanding the storm of indignation that arose at the time. On a still later occasion, at the time of the reform bill, in 1831, we can remember how the house was almost in mutiny, and how that staid gentleman, the Duke of Richmond, almost declared himself in rebellion against his sovereign. Sir Robert Peel, at the very moment the usher of the black rod knocked at the door, was making a most indignant protest against prorogation for the purpose of dissolution. Therefore when such staid men and men of such high position could take that course, we can perhaps pardon hon. gentlemen opposite for having betrayed an unseemly warmth on the 13th of August because the prerogative of the crown was exercised as the crown had the right to exercise it. Therefore, it occurs to every hon. gentleman who has considered the subject well, that the question of constitutionality cannot exist for a moment, and that a question of privilege set up against prerogative is altogether a false cry, an untenable cry, a cry unconstitutional and unwarranted by law. (Cheers.) The prerogative at present is valuable only as one of the liberties of the people, and it is one of the liberties of the people because it is guided, as I said before, by the advice of ministers responsible to the two houses of parliament, not alone to this chamber. The prerogative is not dangerous. There is no hazard that any one of our liberties, personal or political, will be endangered, so long as the prerogative is administered on the advice of a minister having the support and requiring support from the two chambers of parliament. (Cheers.) The question then comes, whether the present ministers of his excellency the

KK

governor-general were justified in recommending the prorogation on the 13th day of August. Sir, if they had not given that advice they would have the sovereign to break his word; they would have advised the sovereign to commit a breach of faith against every absent member of parlia ment. I can say in the presence of this house, in the presence of the country, and in the presence of the world, if the world were listening to our rather unimportant affairs, that if ever a pledge, if ever a bargain, if ever an agreement or arrangement was made, it was that the house should be prorogued on the 13th day of August. Some of the gentlemen who have spoken, I won't tax my memory as to which of them, have made the constitutional objection that the house never agreed to the prorogation on the 13th of August. Sir, the house had nothing to do with it. It is not a matter of agreement between the sovereign and the people; it is a matter of prerogative. Did any educated man, any man who knows what the constitution in Canada or what the constitution in England is, believe that I, the first minister of the crown, could get up in my place and tell this house that on the 13th of August it would be prorogued, and that on that day there was no real necessity for members being present, because it was to be merely a formal meeting that I, a minister of nearly twenty years standing (hear)-who ought to know by practice, and do know by study, somewhat of the British constitution, should make that announcement unless I had got the authority of my master; had got the sanction of the crown? As a matter of course, as his excellency has stated in the answer he made to the gentlemen who waited upon him, I submitted the proposition to his excellency and took his pleasure upon it, just as the first minister in England would take the pleasure of her majesty as to the day on which prorogation was to take place. I got the sanction of his excellency the governor-general to make that statement, and if I had not got that sanction I do not believe the house would have agreed to the long adjournment. We will look back for one moment to see whether I was right, whether the government was right-in speaking of myself I speak of myself and my colleagues whether we ought to receive the sanction of the the house in giving that advice. Let us look back to the circumstances of the case. I invite the careful attention of the house, and especially the attention of those hon. members who were not members of the parliament of Canada at that time, to the circumstances of the case. In February, I think it was, there was a royal charter given for the purpose of building Pacific railway, to the Pacific railway company. They went hometheir president, Sir Hugh Allan and certain other members of the Board for the purpose of attempting to carry out this charter which had been given to them. The charter had been given to them according to the

vote of the Parliament of Canada, with the sanction of the parliament of Canada, and every clause of it was in accordance with the provisions of the law passed by the parliament of Canada. (Cheers.) These gentlemen had gone home to England to lay a great scheme, so great a scheme, Mr. Speaker, that some of the hon. gentlemen opposite said that it was going to overtax our resources and destroy our credit, and that they could not suc. ceed at all with so small a population in such a young country. They had gone home to England to lay the project before the English world and European capitalists. They were going home to operate, and it depended much on the support they received from this country, from the parliament and press of Canada, whether they could succeed or not. They had gone home in February. Parliament met early in March, I think. The hon. member for Shefford rose in his place and made his charge against the government on the 2nd of April. The hon. gentleman may have been, I do not say he was not, actuated by principles of fine patriotism in making that charge; but whether he was so actuated or not, whether his motives were parliamentary or unparliamentary, patriotic or unpatriotic, one thing is certain, that the direct aim, the direct object, the point at which that motion and that statement were directed, was to kill the charter in England. (Cheers.) The weapon was aimed with that object, not so much with the desire of destroying the administration, not so much with the purpose of casting a reflection upon the ministry, as with the view of destroying that first on the expectation that the ministry would fall afterwards. That was the aim; there was no doubt about it, and when the hon. gentleman's motion was defeated, and when I took up the resolution the aim was well intendedthe desire of killing was well intended—but it failed in the execution. (Hear, hear.) When I took it up I considered the whole position of events. Sir Hugh Allan and those connected with him went to England in March. Parliament was sitting at the time the hon. gentleman made his motion. 1 could not know how long parliament would last, and the chances were that they would return some time before the end of the session. If they did not return then, of course I considered that there could be no examination until they did, but I thought they might return. I declare that I never for a moment supposed that the hon. member, when he made his statement, could be guilty of such great, such palpable, such obvious injustice, as to press his committee in the absence of Sir Hugh Allan, Mr. Abbott, and Sir George Cartier, when they had no opportunity of defending either themselves or the charter which they had obtained. The house must remember also that the motion made by the hon. gentleman went much farther than my motion. The motion of the hon. member, which he moved on the 2nd of April, was not only to inquire into the facts that

« PreviousContinue »