to retire. But it is not competent for you to censure the late Parliament, and it appears that you have no facts to go upon in censuring us. The wording of your motion, bespeaking your embarrassment, is in fact our acquittal!" In this line of argument the Government would probably have carried with them independent members, if any such there were, anxious only for the interest of Parliamentary government and for the public service. Parliaments must respect in their predecessors the authority of which they are themselves the heirs, or all authority will be lost. Perhaps the case may even be put more strongly. The word "regret " applied in the amendment to the course taken by the late Parliament was clearly equivalent to "censure"; and the censure was coupled with a suggestion that the Parliament had allowed itself to be misguided by the Ministers, which, though introduced for an obvious reason, aggravated the irregularity. It may be doubted whether the Speaker, if appealed to against the introduction of the motion on the ground that it was not competent for a Parliament to censure its predecessor, could have refused to listen to the appeal. The appeal would at all events have placed the objection in a strong light. Instead, however, of taking this broad ground, which could hardly have failed to give them a victory in debate, the Government, after some boggling about forms, rather discouraging to a party in presence of the enemy, moved, through an unofficial member a resolution "That inasmuch as one-tenth of the constituencies of the Province remain at this time unrepresented in this House * * * * * it is inexpedient further to consider the question involved in the amendment till the said constituencies are duly represented on the floor of this House." The ground thus taken may have been recommended by some strategical advantage invisible to a bystander; but in itself it seems equivocal and weak. Did the Minister mean that the House was incompetent to transact business unless all the constituencies were represented? Such a doctrine, untenable in itself as it would consign most legislatures to a chronic state of suspended animation, was doubly untenable in the mouth of the Minister who, notwithstanding the eight vacancies, had just opened Parliament with all the usual forms for the transaction of general business. Or did the Minister mean that it was inexpedient that a party division should take place and that the Government should change hands till, by the arrival of the eight members, the balance of parties should be finally decided? This was a perfectly tenable position, for nothing can be worse for the State than indecisive faction fights and frequent changes of Government. But it was a position which the Government had abandoned, and which could be recovered only by a frank confession of the original error and an appeal, which, if obviously made in good faith could hardly have been rejected, to the paramount interests of the public service. The shortness of the respite required would have been a good answer to any imputation of clinging to office on mercenary grounds. The calculations of the Opposition proved correct. The resolution of the Government was rejected by a majority of eight (40-32) and the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition was finally carried by seven (40-33). One of the Ministers now, regarding the vote as a virtual vote of no-confidence, performed a duty which is perhaps the most distasteful that a man of honour in public life can be called upon to perform by announcing to the House his individual resignation and leaving his colleagues under fire. The reputation of Lord Russell has never recovered his abandonment of his colleagues in face of the vote of censure moved by Mr. Roebuck in consequence of the miscarriages in the Crimean war. But Lord Russell was gener ally believed to have acted from selfish motives; and the community, while it justly visits with the severest penalties any want of ❘ chivalrous fidelity on the part of a public man towards his associates in the Government, is bound, as it tenders its own highest interests, to protect a conscientious act against sinister imputations till something occurs to show that the imputations are well founded. The rest of the Ministers kept their places, as the Premier, in debate, had in effect announced that they would. In so doing they appear to have been justified by the general rules of public life. The Opposition had endeavoured in debate to give the amendment to the address the character of a general vote of no-confidence. But its effect, whatever that might be, was in reality confined to a particular measure; and this limitation seemed to be essential to its success in the judgment of those by whom it was brought forward. Whether a particular measure is vital to the policy of the Government, and the defeat of it fatal, is a question, the decision of which must, it is apprehended, rest entirely with the Ministry themselves. They will exercise their discretion subject to the penalty, in case of improper retention of office, of immediate loss of reputation with the moral certainty of a speedy and more ruinous overthrow. But it is a false sense of honour which leads a Government to throw up the reins when defeated on any question not really of a vital kind. In so doing the Ministers not only betray the particular principles which they represent and the party whose cause is confided to their hands and by whose exertions they have been placed in power, but they injure the whole community, which has an interest, superior to all party objects, in the stability of government. The Parlia mentary history of England furnishes a case in point in the hasty and somewhat petulant resignation of the Russell Ministry on a secondary question in 1852, which led to the ephemeral government of a minority with fruitless faction fights and much degradation of the character of public men. To challenge a direct vote of no-confidence seems to be the general duty of a Minister who believes that he is still at the head of the majority or even that the adverse division which has taken place is far from a fair measure of the strength of his party. The Opposition now proceeded to move as a further amendment of the address that "The House has no confidence in the Ministry which is attempting to carry out in reference to the control of the said fund of half a million, an usurpation fraught with danger to public liberty and constitutional government." This was obviously nothing but a repetition in effect of the first amendment, framed with the same object of catching stray votes upon the railway question, and open to the same criticism, since it did not allege that the Government had done anything contrary to law or with corrupt intent. "Usurped" a power could not be which, however undesirable, had been duly conferred by the Legislature, and the other epithets, even if applicable to the conduct of the Parliament which passed the Act, could not be applicable to the conduct of the Ministers so long as they were merely obeying the law. This second amendment was, however, tendered and accepted as a general motion of no-confidence. The Government met it by a resolution pledging them, in deference to the expressed opinion of the House, to take no action under the Railway Act without the concurrence of Parliament, but deprecating a decision of the question of confidence till the eight members should have arrived. It has been already said that this was ground in itself perfectly tenable, but which had been abandoned by the Government, and which could be recovered only by resorting to the avowal and appeal before indicated, and at the same time expressing the utmost respect for the authority of the House and the principles of constitutional government. In the division upon this second amendment the Government was defeated by a majority of one (37-36.) A tie was claimed on the side of the Government, on the ground that the Speaker was a Ministerialist. If the Speaker's constituency was Ministerial, the Ministerial party was entitled to the benefit of that fact. But no one can reckon the Speaker's vote. He leaves not only party connection but personal opinion behind him when he ascends the chair. Even when called upon to give his casting vote, he gives it not in the interest of his party or of his own opinions, but in the interest of legislation. If the measure is in its final stage he votes against it, that it may not pass without a clear majority; if it is not in its final stage he votes for it, in order that it may not be withdrawn from further consideration. Such at least was the view expressed in the writer's hearing by a Speaker of the British House of Commons, who mentioned at the same time that Mr. Abbot being called upon to give his casting vote upon Mr. Whitbread's motion of censure against Lord Melville, and being a man of nervous temperament, asked the leave of the House to retire for the purpose of considering his course, and after having been absent for some time returned and voted wrong. Tie or no tie, it would seem that the Ministers ought now to have resigned. They had manifestly lost the control of the House, and with it the chance of obtaining an adjournment till the re-elections. There had been unequivocal symptoms among their symptoms among their supporters of failing confidence and wavering allegiance. It was manifest that in no subsequent division were they likely to command so large a following or to have the opportunity of retiring with so good a grace and so fair a prospect of retrieving their fortunes in case the new elections should result in their favour. If a constitutional Government has ever retained office after a direct vote of no-confidence or anything equivalent to one, it has been because the Ministers were avowedly about to appeal Instead of resigning however, the Ministers brought down in answer to the Address a message from the Lieutenant-Governor ignoring the general expression of no-confidence and stating in regard to the Railway Fund, which was assumed to be the sole subject of complaint, that the Government had done nothing except in accordance with the Act, which the House was at liberty, if it thought fit, to repeal. This was in itself true, pertinent, and in fact a complete answer to the paragraph in the Address. But it came too late. The general question of confidence had been debated on both sides. The doom of the Ministry was sealed. The Opposition at once moved a string of resolutions condemning the remaining Ministers for continuing to hold office against the expressed opinion of the House and concluding with a threat of stopping the supplies. The combination by which the Ministers were supported now broke up. The Government was defeated by nineteen (44-25), and on such occasions the division list is generally an inadequate measure of the disaster. The large number of seats vacant in proportion to the total number of the House formed the ruling feature of the situation and must be regarded as the key, throughout, to the conduct of the Ministers. Such conjunctures are so likely to occur under the new election law in the case of a small Assembly that it would seem desirable to agree to deal with them by some settled mode. The debate, though not unrelieved by vigorous and effective speeches, was on the whole somewhat rambling and inconclusive; members travelling over the whole case for or against the Government, as though they had been on the hustings, with little regard to the specific question before them or to the successive phases of the situation. This was in favour of the Opposition, whose policy it was, under cover of a censure upon the Railway Act, to make a general attack on the Government, and against the interest of the Ministers, whose aim it should have been to to pin the Opposition to the only issue which it had ventured to raise, and on which the Ministers had it in their power to make a conclusive reply. A victory in debate is far from ensuring a victory on the division; but a victory in debate is worth having, and it appeared to be eminently so on this occasion. The debate at times grew somewhat personal, but on the whole, during the main discussion, good humour and courtesy were well preserved, considering that the occasion was most exciting and that few of the members had undergone such a Parliamentary seasoning as has been undergone by a large proportion of the members of the British House of Commons, which, nevertheless, on similar occasions is not free from heated language and clamorous demonstrations. In the sequel, however, a scene of lamentable violence occurred. There can be no hesitation in saying that the Speaker erred in attempting to make a personal explanation from the Chair. But, on the other hand, the right course was not to stop his mouth, but to wait till he had disclosed the nature of his intended communication and then to call his attention to the rule. The error was merely one of form, involving no practical injustice, while the occasion was one of a kind which appeals to the sympathies of all right-minded men. The charge against the Speaker's character, which he desired to repel, being anonymous, might well have been left unnoticed. It ought to be universally understood that an anonymous accusation can affect no man's honour, and that if he notices it at all it is only because he regards the repression of calumny as a duty owed to the public. But at the same time this age, in which we all contend so anxiously for position and notoriety, is becoming a little indifferent to questions of honour. Scenes of violence are especially to be deplored in the case of a young legislature. The immemorial majesty of the British Parliament is comparatively little affected by occasional escapades, the discredit of which falls more on the members who are guilty of them, than on the institution. But the Parliament of Ontario has not yet had time to take root in the reverence of the people, nor will it ever take root, if it fails to cultivate the self-control which alone can entitle it to popular respect. On this occasion, and indeed throughout the crisis, the want was sensibly felt of one or two independent members, invested by their character and experience with authority to mediate between parties in the extremity of conflict and to enforce a paramount regard for the public service. But when the tenure of public life is so short, such members can hardly find a place. In addition to the generally electric state of the Parliamentary atmosphere after such ment very interesting to political observers, that it has only one chamber. Nothing happened in the course of this crisis tending to show that a second chamber was necessary or desirable. On the contrary, had there been two chambers, one popular and representing the present state of public opinion, the other less popular, and repre a struggle, special exasperation had been created against the Speaker by the unexpected announcement that he had taken office in the new Government. This arrangement is said to have been partly dictated by the necessity of giving a representation in the Ministry to the district from which the Speaker belonged. A calamitous necessity! If local considerations are al-senting rather a past state of public opinion, lowed to prevail in the election of members and the composition of Cabinets, farewell to our hopes of Canadian statemanship! What would become of the statesmanship of England if such local limitations were permitted to prevail; if Mr. Gladstone were to be excluded from Parliament because he happens to reside in a Conservative district, and if in choosing his Cabinet he were compelled to have regard not to administrative capacity but to geographical divisions? In a dark age of the English Constitution an Act was passed confining the choice of the electors to persons resident within the county or borough; but the good sense of the nation ignored the Act; it became a dead letter, and at last was formally repealed. If all the members of the British Cabinet were taken from a single district, nobody would be so foolish as to object, provided the appointments were unobjectionable on other grounds. In the United States, on the other hand, local considerations are allowed to prevail; in the election of members of the legislature the people cling to them with the most slavish tenacity; they greatly fetter the President in the selection of his Cabinet; and this is one of the main causes of the dearth in that country of public men known and trusted generally as statesmen. It is a peculiarity of the Ontario Parlia with a majority for the Ministry in one and for the Opposition in the other, serious complications might have ensued. We might have had a dead lock like that which was produced in one of the Australian Colonies by a collision between two chambers. As it is, after a sharp and decisive struggle, a new Government has emerged, possessing apparently full control over the House, and legislation will quietly resume its course. The conflicts of parties are sure to be violent enough without adding to them the rivalries of chambers. In the course of the debate many charges of corruption and of the use of improper influence were thrown out against the Ministers; but the only one brought to a definite issue was a charge implicating two leading members of the commercial world in an alleged conspiracy to force a member of the Opposition to resign his seat by bringing to bear on him commercial pressure. In this case the two gentlemen accused sent in a full and detailed correction of the statement, which was frankly accepted. On the subject of corruption, however, and the cognate subject of faction, we may find occasion hereafter to speak in a more general way, and with less risk of appearing to point our remarks against any particular Government or party. |