'

2i8 THE EXAMINER

i a ae en

but, at the same time. I honestly assure those honorable worthy oftheir confidence awhen sent here yesterday, is| his seat in accordance with the resolution passed last hat—although [ do not believe myself to be it probable that his nature or disposition should be so| Session?

19 tenacious of my own opinions—I am not! changed, to day, on his being invested with an honorary; Mfr. Haviland.— Yes. ss

likely to become a convert to their views with respect to distinction, that he should, all at once, become unworthy | Mr. Whelan. Then you admit that a resolution 18 the present question, from a reyiew of the arguments, or of that coufidence ? No: such a moral metamorphosis | equally binding, in such a case, as an Act of Parliament? rather sophistries, wiich they, have udvenced in support cannot be, either immediately or so easily, effected. In| Mr. Haviland.—No. | ,

of the resolution submitted by the hen. and learned!our debate upon the question of Responsible Govern-| Mr. Whelan.—No!! Well, T can only say, that after anember for Charlottetown. Lowever, Sir, allow me to, ment, last year, it was urged that three or four members| this, I shall not be surprised at receiving a denial from revert, for a moment, te those arguments, if arguments! of the House should hold seats in the Council. Now,/that gentieman upon any point. — we may have they niay be called. Their whole sum and substance suppose that, at the commencement ofa new Parliatnent,| all erred in reference to the Reso — of last Session, are, to me, it appears, to the effect—that the House of four members are called to the Council from the party we tnust admit that they are insu a to confirm Mr. Assembly, last Sessign, passed a resolution, in which it) having a majority—this majority consists of thirteen— Coles’ in his seat, or deprive him of it: for if we argue was declared, that a member ofthis House, on being’ the seats of the four members are declared vacant,— upon a contrary proposition, we are compelled to adopt called to the Councj!, vacated his seat in this body-—that| then the minority of eleven at once become the majority the conclusion, that the Lieutenant Governor, who-s- the Act, or clause of the Act, to which this resolution | until the seats of the new Councillors are again filled. sues a writ for the election of a member in the room of referred, was clear,and explicit, inasmuch as the House The thirteen who supported the policy of Government one who accepts a seat in the Executive Council, is not had declared .it to be so—that the Assembly was the!are reduced to nine, and the eleven may, if they please, | bound by law, but by the mere expression of opinion on only competent authority to determine this point—that pass measures highly prejudicial to the continuance of the part of one Branch of the Legislature. Acting in its determination should be absolute—that the right as-'the Government. Under such a principle, Government pursuance of such an assumption, this House, independ- sumed by the Crown, through the agency of its legal! must become weak and vacillating,—under the principle! ent of law, might, with perfect consistency, proceed:to advisers, to interpret an Act of Parliament, was uncon-|of the original resolution, as applied to Responsible Go-|declare its own permanence, or, in other words,-to create stitutyonal, and an infringement on the privileges of the! vernment, the minority is transformed into the majority. itself, But, Sir, I consider it an _enprofitable expendi- Assembly, and dangerous to the rights and liberties of| As to the office of an Executive Councillor being one of ture of time, to argue in favour of the resolution of last the people. Opposed to this mode of reasoning, it has;)emolument, I look upon it as a mere subterfuge, and not Session. It could not possibly have the effect of vacat- beencontended by hon. members whose opinions are in/an argument. The Speaker of the House of Commons ing Mr. Coles’s seat; for if it had, the Legislature. of accordance with my own—that the question is one of'is er officio, a member of the Privy Council. He never New Brunswick might have spared themselves the jaw, and not of privilege—that the House are not thelacts. An Executive Councillor in this Colony is ex trouble of passing a Bill which went to establish: the dispensers of the law—that it is for the Government tolofficio a Justice of the Peace—he never performs the principle contended for by the hon. gentlemen on the determine in what particular cases an act is binding or|duties of one. He is a Commissioner in the Courts of other side of the House, for on that principle a resolu- got binding—that the 24th clause of tae Act 6th Will.) Admiralty and Divorce, but is seldom or never ealled tion would have effected their object in a safer and 4th, cap. 24, became inoperative on the separation of the) upon to act. An Executive Councillor holds an office ' speedier manner, and had the Lieutenant Governor Councils, because a member of the House could hold a}by which he loses, so far as his pocket 1s concerned, | declined to act upon it, the House of Assembly of that seat at the Executive Board, and, at the same time, at-\rather than gains. Sir, I consider it an idle task to! Province might then proceed to lecture him against en-

gentlemen, t in general, t

-end to his duties in the Assembly ; whereas, whilst the! dwell for any length of time upon such arguments as croaching upon the privileges of Parliament, and the

Councils were joined, it was impossible for a member of these. It was my wish to have spoken at an earlier/rights of the People. Sir, 1 am not disposed to give the House to sit in both branches—that after the Coun-/stage ofthe debate; and, had it been in my power to do! much credit for sincerity to those honourable gentlemen «ils were separated, three members of the House were/so, | would, perhaps, bave reviewed miore ininutely the! who have raised their -voices on behalf of Privilege and called to the Executive Council, and stil] retained their|argnments used in support of the resolution offered by Right. Last year, when the contested elections engaged seats in the Assembly—that it is not the practice in tle} the hon. member for Charlottetown. The most plausible the attention of the House, these walls echoed the same ‘Mother Country, fora member of the House of Commons, | of all these arguments is that which relates to the pri-' cry—* Protect the Rights of the subject—vindicate the on being called to the Privy Council, to vacate his seat! vileges of this House. In order tosupport their assump-| Privilege of Parliament!” But to what did it amount ? in the former, unless he receive an office of emolument,|tion, that our privileges are involved in the question,!One of those elections was decided contrary to the views

‘which is, indeed, often the case, in connection. with his| gentlemen on the opposite side of the House have en- of gentlemen opposite, and I am not aware, Sir, that that

Ministerial. capacity. By a comparative reference to tertained us with elaborate reports, setting forth the decision has proved injurious to the privileges of this this fact, it will be perceived how deeply read, in parlia-| result of their enquiries through the several authorities House, or to the interests of those who have sent us mentaty practice and precedents, is the hon. member|in which the privileges of Parliament are set forth and here. Hon. members may twist and turn as they please fur Georgetown (Mr. Haviland), who in a resolution) deiined. I do not presume to cope, in matters of eonsti-!—may weave fine-spun arguments to captivate our ima- submitted by him, last Session, proposed,—that it was in| tutional law and parliamentary usage, with the honour- | ginations —may cull the choicest flowers of rhetoric to accordance with constitutional practice, and with the able gentlemen diko have taken a different view of the adorn.their declamation; but their real intentions and principles of Responsible Government, for a meimber of question from that adopted by my honourable friends and!desires cannot be wholly hidden from our view. We the House of Assembly to vacate his seat on being cal-| myself, upon this side of the House. Noram I ambitious' may admire them for their rheteric; but we cannot led to the Council. (Here Mr. W. read from the Journals! of that notoriety which some of the “constitutional” praise them for their ratiocination—we may applaud the resolution referred to.) The question of Responsible! lawyers in this Honse have attained—(and I may remark!them for their zeal; but we cannot commend them for Government is mentioned in the resolution which I have'that | have not my “evil eye” on the learned member'their sincerity. I believe it tobe their object, not so just read; but it is not necessary to the carrying out of for Georgetown)—by their frequent references to Par-' much to sustain the privileges of Parliament, as to hu- that system of Government, for a member to ga back to liamentary authorities—that notoriety, which, f consider, | miliate a political adversary. 1 do not mean to say that his constituents on being called to the Council, if Re-| often gives them a claim to be ranked with that class of they have completely driven from their minds all consi- sponsible Government means—as I contend it does— would-be poets, of whom it was said, they had “ just) deration of the sacred principles of right and wrong ; but, British Government, according to the signification given’ enough of learning to misqnote ;” bet I would be re-|¥ do think, Sir, that they have used all their ingenuity tothe term in every other British Colony. That the! garded as one who cherishes as profond a reverence for to make those principles—immutable, unpliant, as they principle sought.to be established, by the advocates of the real and unmistaken privileges of Parliament, as are-—subservient to the unfair, indecorous, and implaca- the original Resolution, is nota British one, can be! may be found to distinguish the conduct of any of those’ ble hostility manifested towards Mr. Coles. Letus sup- shewn by reference to far higher authority than that of) diligent investigators into the mysteries of Black Letter! pose Mr. James McCalium to be in the situation of the the: “ constitutional” lawyers of this House. ‘Lore. And I do not, fora moment, suppose, Sir, that the! gentleman whose name | have just mentioned—that he

Dr. Conroy rose-to order. He said the hon. member vote which T mean to give upon the resolution now be-|had held a seat in this House for vears past—that he was straying trom the question then before the Commit-| fore you, will be in the slightest degree dangerous to the had been a true and faithful upholder of the political tee, which was, whether Mr. Coles should, or should not, security of those privileges, for the preservation of which principles which distingnish the gentlemen on the other sit within the Bar. they affect so mucli zeal. Had the Crown dared to dis-'side--that he had been ¢alled to the Council—that bis

Mr. Rae said Mr. Whelan was not out of order, as he | pute our right to pass such laws in this House, us the|seat in the Assembly had been declared vacant, and that was contending for Mr. Coles’s sight as a member to sit wants and circumstances of our constituents demanded, | he had been sent back to his constituents, and had again within the Bar. ‘and the principles of the Constitution allowed—had it polled a majority of votes—and that the Crown Officers

Mr. Whelan continued. The hon. member( Dr. Conroy) presumed to assert a control over the apprepriation of had declared that no vacancy had existed, and that the is somewhat too hasty in his interruption. Other hon.|the public money for wise, and necessary, and constitu- election was illegal,—let us, I say, suppose that all this members have been permitted to introduce various topics tional purposes—had it insinuated a claim to interfere|had occurred with respect to Mr. McCallum, just as it connected with the principal question. ~ He should prac-'in our discussions—had it assumed a right to govern the has done with respect to Mr. Coles; and let us then en- tise towards me that forbearance which he shows to'conduct of aay member within the walls of this Assem-/ quire how, in all probability, the hon. members on the others, and which his own speeches so very often re-' bly, [ would then have considered that our rights and/other side would have dealt with the case. I feel con- quire. I have not lost sight of the question incidentally privileges were invaded, and would have stood boldly! yinced, Sir, that,had Mr. Mecallum been the individual raised, in reference to Mr. Coles’s right to sit here, while, forward in their defence. But the matter before you,! whose Tistit to a seat inthis House was so involved,those his claim to act asa member is under consideration; Sir, involves, in my opinion, rather a question of abstract!hon. members would have argued in favour of Mr. Mec- and, I contend, that in arguing upon t!is major question, | law, than of privilege—a question that may be embodied |Callum’s right to sit here, with a zeal and determination we, et the same time, discuss the minor one. I was about in these simple words—Is there any enactment of this equal to those which now characterize their opposition to observe, Sir, when interrupted, that Lord Stanley—in Island to compel Mr. Coles to vacate his seat? The'to the claim of Mr. Coles. ‘And, with respect to the a Despatch to the Governor of New Brunswick, in re-, Law Officers have distinctly declared that there is not.’ course which, in such case, I should myself have pursued ference toa Bill which had passed the Legislature of But we are advised to reject their opinion, and'to judge'—utterly unconscious, as I am, of being influenced in

° that Province, enacting, that a member of the House for ourselves. Here, then, we are called upon to act in'the consideration of the question as it really stands,

accepting a seat in the Council forfeited his seat in the'a two-fold capacity: first, as the makers of the law, and either by party or personal feelings—I sincerely think

Lower Branch—declared that the principle was ua- secondly, as its interpreters. Weare called upon to that, had Mr. Mc€allum, or any other gentleman, stood ‘British, and questioned the propriety of making such a renounce the opinions of the Crown Officers. 1 might) in the position now occupied by Mr. Coles—-awaiting measure the law of the land. (Mr. Whelan here read as well say to our advisers and instructors on the other our decision with respect to a right asserted by hinnto a that part of the Despatch which appears in the New side of the House—“ Renounee the opinions and decla-| seat in this House—-I would have spoken and voted in Brunswick journals.) ‘rations with which the Library has supplied you, and favour of that gentleman, as I now do in favour of Mr. The hon Speaker here rose and said, that, notwith- upon which you so frequently lean for support.”” The! Coles: fully persuaded that [was only endeavouring to standing the opinion ‘of Lord Stanley, the Bill was not writers quoted were, no doubt, learned in the usages of \secure a decision in strict accordance with the principles disallowed. : Parliament ; but they were no less liable to error than of justice and impartiality ; and, for such a line of con- Mr. Whelan resumed, | Well, although Lord Stanley’s other men. |-eannot. conceive why men, writing of duct, certain 1am that T should never either be at a loss Despatch had been before alluded to, the hon. Speaker events now dimly see through the obscurity of the past’ for a justification or fear being called to account by.my did not give the information which he has now commu-,—men, of whose love of truth and impartiality we have! constituents z 14 nicated. But, whether the Bill was or was not suffered no positive testimony—should be considered more wor-! {To be concluded in our next.} to go into operation—be the fact as it may, my position thy of credence, than those who have equal ability to! cannot be weaked by admitting it. I assert that the express an opinion—whose motives we cannot impugn, |

The exports | of flour and wheat from the United States

principle is not British, Lord Stanly bears me out in the and whose freedom from prejudice and party feeling, so since 1790, a period of fifty-seven years, is set down at

assertion. Responsible Government has been so often far as relates to their legal opinion in this matter, is un-| 16,661,312 bushels of wheat, and 54,385,088 barrels of spoken of, in the course of the debate, that 1 cannot re- questioned. [ will now, Sir, ask the supporters. of the | flour.

‘ frain from making one observation in reference to it. I, resolution one simple question. Supposing the ambi-| Boston, in 1820, bad a population of 43,000. In 1830.

cannot see that the responsibility which a member of guous clause of the Act, which led to the present dis-'62,400. In 1840, 93,389. In 1845, it was 114,999, and this House owes to his constituents, is weakened on his cussion, had been obliterated from the Statute Book,!im 1847,” it was 121,000. It ie probably increasing a! beeoming an adviser of the Grown. Ifhe was in reality, would they contend that Mr. Coles was bound to vecate this period faster than ever it did before.